Lawsuit: Dismissed steveshat v. Keystone Holdings [2024] FCR 27

[Alexander P. Love]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


steveshat (Represented by Dragon Law)
Plaintiff

v.

Keystone Holdings
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

steveshat is a man who was having a good time, and tried his luck at several casino games within Keystone Holdings. He deposited over $900k, and when making his last bet before running out of gambling money, he won big: winner winner chicken dinner. To be exact, he won over 1.8 million dollars, doubling what he invested. The casino didn't like this, however, and flat-out refused to award this payout when the plaintiff requested a withdrawal. The reason? Betting limits that should have been there but weren't as a result of the defendant's negligence. The defendant offered the plaintiff a disgusting $265k, a total insult considering this results in a huge net loss. It is time to teach businesses accountability. It is time to get justice for a wronged victim of contract breach.


I. PARTIES
1. steveshat (Plaintiff)
2. Keystone Holdings (Tortfeasor)
3. wetc (Agent of Keystone Holdings)

II. FACTS
1. On February 15th, 2024, steveshat deposited $969,009 into his Keystone Holdings gambling balance that could then be used to gamble, and could be withdrawn for cash at any time (Exhibit A).
2. On the same day, this money was gambled extensively with onlookers commenting on the gambling. To their shock, steveshat won $1,800,000.00 in a game of roulette (Exhibit B).
3. Keystone Holdings refused to pay out the winnings, offering to resolve the matter for a mere $265,000 under the reasoning that there was a max bet of $5,000 in place (Exhibits C and D).
4. Keystone Holdings had no posted policy of a max bet posted as of the 15th of February, 2024. Their gambling bot also did not have the feature of max betting properly configured, leading it to accept a higher bet (Exhibit E).
5. The plaintiff offered for the defendant to pay the 1.8 million dollars (and less in some offers) out overtime in a payment plan to protect their interests, but the defendant denied this request multiple times (Exhibit F).

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The casino receives actual monetary bets in return for the expectation of that money returned on a win. This constitutes a contract under the Foundation of Contract Law (link) as it satisfies all the necessary elements, while maybe not as explicitly as other contracts. Whether or not this legally stands, that expectation still exists and is represented by the casino's posting of odds on specific games. Representing those odds is also backing the outcome of the bet, whether a win or loss. To misrepresent these facts constitutes gambling fraud under the Commercial Standards Act (link). These odds were misrepresented when the casino refused to compensate the plaintiff his winnings, and thus is grounds for damages under the Legal Damages Act (link).
2. The two factors described in fact four combine sum up to negligence on Keystone Holdings and no reasonable assumption of any risk by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to his full earnings, and the excuse of a max bet holds no legal water.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $1,800,000 in compensatory damages - the duty to mitigate was satisfied as described in fact five of this filing.
2. $50,000 in punitive damages for grossly and outrageously denying the plaintiff his winnings and having the audacity to strongarm and lowball him to a tremendous degree.
3. 5% of $1,800,000 is $90,000 and this would be the monthly interest steveshat would earn if he stored his winnings in banks that offer 5% interest such as Wells Fargo & Co., Sterling Capital, etc... Therefore, each day of not having this money loses the plaintiff $3,000 in opportunity costs. The plaintiff therefore requests $3,000 each day starting from the 16th of February 2024 until the 1.8 million dollars is finally paid to the plaintiff.
4. $50,000 in loss of enjoyment in Redmont as $1,800,000 can buy a lot of things, things that the plaintiff cannot enjoy for as long as he is denied his winnings.
5. $380,000 + 20% of the award of prayer for relief 3 in legal fees, awarded to Dragon Law Firm.

V. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: Exhibit A

Spoiler: Exhibit B

Spoiler: Exhibit C

Spoiler: Exhibit D

Spoiler: Exhibit E

Spoiler: Exhibit F

https://tickettool.xyz/transcript/v...a71aadfcc82fcea132b68a6dab2b96df70744f6a1a5ed

VI. PRELIMINARY WITNESSES
1. steveshat
2. Stoppers

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 19th day of February 2024

 

[xLayzur]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

@wetc is required to appear before the court in the case of Steveshat v Keystone Holdings. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​

 

[wetc]

lovely law is representing me

 

[dodrio3]

Your Honour, I request a 24h extension my internet has gone down for my pc so I am unable to paste my response into this thread

 

[Snowy_Heart]

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

steveshat
Plaintiff

v.

Keystone Holdings (Represented By Lovely)
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. The Defense Affirms That $969,009 was deposited by the Plaintiff
2. The Defense Affirms That the bot gave an outcome of $1,800,000 on a game of roulette
3. The Defense Affirms Keystone Holdings did offer $265,000 as compensation and increase this amount later.
4. The Defense Disputes that the max bet wasn’t set up correctly was due to the fact that the third party bot malfunctions which Keystone are not responsible for (Exhibit C).
5. The Defense Disputes that Keystone offered to pay the $1.8 Million.

II. DEFENCES

1. On the 21st of February 2024, Keystone Holdings promptly took action by contacting the staff team of the bot they employ. Exhibit A's communication with the bot's creator illustrates that Keystone Holdings has proactively addressed the malfunctioning issue. It is essential to note that Keystone Holdings cannot be held liable for the malfunction of the bot, especially when they have demonstrated diligence in attempting to rectify the situation.

1. Furthermore, it is crucial to highlight that despite having evidence of this generous offer, the plaintiff failed to bring it to light during their statement. Keystone Holdings, as our esteemed client, acted in good faith and offered a more than reasonable resolution to the plaintiff when faced with the consequences of the bot's malfunction. Despite the inability to fulfil the entire sum due to the malfunction, Keystone Holdings expressed a willingness to compensate the plaintiff beyond the initial offer. We offered a total of 850k, allocating 500k to honor a portion of the bet and an additional 350k to compensate for bet losses that should not have occurred. This offer, made in good faith, and the limitations imposed by the malfunction demonstrates Keystone Holdings' unwavering commitment to resolving the matter equitably. (Exhibit B)

1. In addition to our previous points, drawing attention to the information provided under the gambling section within the Discord platform is imperative. Specifically, it is stated clearly that "Any technical issues related to the bot cannot be fixed or rectified monetarily or otherwise by The Exchange." This statement underscores the understanding and agreement between users, including the plaintiff and The Exchange, regarding the limitations and responsibilities associated with technical issues concerning the bot. Therefore, it is evident that the plaintiff was aware, or should have been aware, of the provisions outlined in the Discord platform regarding technical malfunctions and their resolution. This further supports our position that Keystone Holdings acted responsibly within the constraints outlined in the platform's guidelines.(Exhibit C)

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

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 (day) day of (month) (year)

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

Exhibit C

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

steveshat
Plaintiff

v.

Keystone Holdings (Represented By Lovely)
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Within the information provided for gambling activities within Keystone Holdings, it is explicitly stated, as evidenced in Exhibit C, that "Any technical issues related to the bot cannot be fixed or rectified monetarily or otherwise by The Exchange." This statement serves as a clear indication of the terms and conditions agreed upon by all users, including the plaintiff, regarding the handling of technical malfunctions associated with the bot.

Furthermore, it is worth noting that the staff team responsible for maintaining the Discord bot utilised by Keystone Holdings confirmed the occurrence of similar issues, as indicated in Exhibit A. Specifically, they acknowledged instances where the bot ceased registering commands, a malfunction that occurred mere hours before the plaintiff placed the bet in question.



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 23rd day of February 2024

 

[Alexander P. Love]

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

steveshat
Plaintiff

v.

Keystone Holdings (Represented By Lovely)
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. The Defense Affirms That $969,009 was deposited by the Plaintiff
2. The Defense Affirms That the bot gave an outcome of $1,800,000 on a game of roulette
3. The Defense Affirms Keystone Holdings did offer $265,000 as compensation and increase this amount later.
4. The Defense Disputes that the max bet wasn’t set up correctly was due to the fact that the third party bot malfunctions which Keystone are not responsible for (Exhibit C).
5. The Defense Disputes that Keystone offered to pay the $1.8 Million.

II. DEFENCES

1. On the 21st of February 2024, Keystone Holdings promptly took action by contacting the staff team of the bot they employ. Exhibit A's communication with the bot's creator illustrates that Keystone Holdings has proactively addressed the malfunctioning issue. It is essential to note that Keystone Holdings cannot be held liable for the malfunction of the bot, especially when they have demonstrated diligence in attempting to rectify the situation.

1. Furthermore, it is crucial to highlight that despite having evidence of this generous offer, the plaintiff failed to bring it to light during their statement. Keystone Holdings, as our esteemed client, acted in good faith and offered a more than reasonable resolution to the plaintiff when faced with the consequences of the bot's malfunction. Despite the inability to fulfil the entire sum due to the malfunction, Keystone Holdings expressed a willingness to compensate the plaintiff beyond the initial offer. We offered a total of 850k, allocating 500k to honor a portion of the bet and an additional 350k to compensate for bet losses that should not have occurred. This offer, made in good faith, and the limitations imposed by the malfunction demonstrates Keystone Holdings' unwavering commitment to resolving the matter equitably. (Exhibit B)

1. In addition to our previous points, drawing attention to the information provided under the gambling section within the Discord platform is imperative. Specifically, it is stated clearly that "Any technical issues related to the bot cannot be fixed or rectified monetarily or otherwise by The Exchange." This statement underscores the understanding and agreement between users, including the plaintiff and The Exchange, regarding the limitations and responsibilities associated with technical issues concerning the bot. Therefore, it is evident that the plaintiff was aware, or should have been aware, of the provisions outlined in the Discord platform regarding technical malfunctions and their resolution. This further supports our position that Keystone Holdings acted responsibly within the constraints outlined in the platform's guidelines.(Exhibit C)

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

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 (day) day of (month) (year)

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

Exhibit C

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

steveshat
Plaintiff

v.

Keystone Holdings (Represented By Lovely)
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Within the information provided for gambling activities within Keystone Holdings, it is explicitly stated, as evidenced in Exhibit C, that "Any technical issues related to the bot cannot be fixed or rectified monetarily or otherwise by The Exchange." This statement serves as a clear indication of the terms and conditions agreed upon by all users, including the plaintiff, regarding the handling of technical malfunctions associated with the bot.

Furthermore, it is worth noting that the staff team responsible for maintaining the Discord bot utilised by Keystone Holdings confirmed the occurrence of similar issues, as indicated in Exhibit A. Specifically, they acknowledged instances where the bot ceased registering commands, a malfunction that occurred mere hours before the plaintiff placed the bet in question.



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 23rd day of February 2024

Objection, Your Honor

Breach of procedure. This was filed after the deadline. The extension request was also submitted after the deadline.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Objection, Your Honor

Breach of procedure. This was filed after the deadline. The extension request was also submitted after the deadline.

Your Honor, we ask for your gracious leniency the lawyer who was in charge of this case, internet went out right before they were about to post it I posted for them as soon as I could. This was communicated with the courts at our earliest opportunity I ask that an IRL technical problem does not impede our clients right to a defense. I will personally make sure it doesn't happen again. My apologies again we humbly ask that you deny this objection. Thank you, Your Honor.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

If my objection is overruled, I request to respond to the motion, your honor.

 

[xLayzur]

Snowy_Heart:

MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Within the information provided for gambling activities within Keystone Holdings, it is explicitly stated, as evidenced in Exhibit C, that "Any technical issues related to the bot cannot be fixed or rectified monetarily or otherwise by The Exchange." This statement serves as a clear indication of the terms and conditions agreed upon by all users, including the plaintiff, regarding the handling of technical malfunctions associated with the bot.

Furthermore, it is worth noting that the staff team responsible for maintaining the Discord bot utilised by Keystone Holdings confirmed the occurrence of similar issues, as indicated in Exhibit A. Specifically, they acknowledged instances where the bot ceased registering commands, a malfunction that occurred mere hours before the plaintiff placed the bet in question.

The Defendant's motion to dismiss is DENIED. The case shall proceed to further proceedings as scheduled. While this acknowledgment may bear relevance to the ultimate determination of liability in this case, it does not conclusively establish the Defendant's entitlement to dismissal at this juncture.

Objection, Your Honor

Breach of procedure. This was filed after the deadline. The extension request was also submitted after the deadline.

Objection is overruled, and I hereby issue a formal warning to the Defendant to ensure their presence before all deadlines set forth by this court. @Alexander P. Love you may respond to the motion.

We will now move on to the Discovery phase of the trial. Please provide any additional evidence or a list of witnesses within the next 7 days.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

@Alexander P. Love you may respond to the motion.

Your honor, as the motion was denied, do you still seek a response?

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Witness List
Your honor, the plaintiff tenders the following as witnesses:
1. steveshat
2. Stoppers

 

[xLayzur]

Your honor, as the motion was denied, do you still seek a response?

As you requested yes, proceed.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Exhibit A

Objection, Your Honor
Hearsay. The screenshot contains out of Court statements by a player who doesn't even play the server. The declarant of these statements cannot be cross examined, and therefore the evidence falls under the definition of hearsay and must be ruled inadmissible.

Exhibit B

Objection, Your Honor
Relevance. The generosity of the offer has no bearing on the facts of this case nor the law itself.

 

[Nacho]

Objection, Your Honor
Hearsay. The screenshot contains out of Court statements by a player who doesn't even play the server. The declarant of these statements cannot be cross examined, and therefore the evidence falls under the definition of hearsay and must be ruled inadmissible.

Your Honor,

Let's look at the facts real quick... we are claiming there to be a functional breakdown of a bot, causing a liability on the bot breaking itself. At the same time, it would be fantastic if our clients, including various other casinos, were able to create and maintain a bot; however, that is far from the reality we live in. We require the use of 3rd party bots that sometimes break down. The objected-to evidence is valid as it provides unimpeachable proof that the bot was broken. The defendant just doesn't wish to acknowledge or accept the simple fact that our client genuinely was not at fault in this instance.

To further support the claim, using the objection Hersey is hardly a valid objection as this is not a witness but rather evidence being supported. In this context, the objection is invalid per the definition of the 'Hersey' is "When a witness testifies about a statement made by another person and uses contents of the statement to prove a fact true or false."

Objection, Your Honor
Relevance. The generosity of the offer has no bearing on the facts of this case nor the law itself.

Your Honor,

The offer supports the second point within our defenses to the case filed against our client. I am unsure how the council can claim relevance when the offer is directly connected to the answer to the complaint.

 

[Nacho]

Your Honor,

We want to call the following individuals as witnesses within our defense.

1. Wetc | KeyStone Executive
2. LilDigiVert | Casino Owner
3. SuperSuperking | KeyStone client
4. steveshat | Plaintiff

 

[Nacho]

Interrogatories​

1. How long have to played at keystone?
2. Have you previously withdrew funds from a KeyStone Account?

We may have further questions. Also - we added another individual's name to our witness list as Steveshat.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your Honor,

We want to call the following individuals as witnesses within our defense.

1. Wetc | KeyStone Executive
2. LilDigiVert | Casino Owner
3. SuperSuperking | KeyStone client
4. steveshat | Plaintiff

Your honor, the defense cannot force the plaintiff to testify as their witness. The plaintiff will testify for the plaintiff side.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

WITNESS LIST
1. steveshat
2. Stoppers

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Interrogatories​

1. How long have to played at keystone?
2. Have you previously withdrew funds from a KeyStone Account?

We may have further questions. Also - we added another individual's name to our witness list as Steveshat.

1. The first question makes no grammatical sense and will thus not be able to be answered.
2. No funds have been “withdrew” previously. That’s not to say funds haven’t been “withdrawn” previously however.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, we will also be adding Dartanman to our witness list as an expert witness on both discord bots and casinos.

 

[Nacho]

Your honor, the defense cannot force the plaintiff to testify as their witness. The plaintiff will testify for the plaintiff side.

Objection
Breach of Procedure

Counsel was not instructed to speak within the thread before his message by the sitting judge, nor was an objection filed. The defense requested that the statement be struck from the record.

 

[Nacho]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

Your Honor,

Just because I suffer from acute dyslexia and forget how to draft modern English and misspell words occasionally with horrible grammatical skills, the plaintiff is still required to answer the question as they managed to figure out what I said for the second question. Just because I am bad at English does not give the plaintiff's council the right to 1) insult my bad English skills and 2) Not answer the questions we issue in the discovery period.

Should the plaintiff's council fail to submit a response to my grammatically correct question in my eyes. We formally request the court to levy sanctions against the council for failure to comply with court procedures.

Thank you

DATED: This 1 day of March 2024

 

[Nacho]

Your honor, we will also be adding Dartanman to our witness list as an expert witness on both discord bots and casinos.

Objection
Incompetent / Relevance

We object to the basis that the witness made their bot, not using a stock bot that anyone can go and select for the operation of the interwebs. The witness could not testify to the bot's operations described in this case as they again created their bot with their code. The bot being debated in this matter is 'unbelieveboat', a stock bot sourced online, which is not custom-coded in its entirety by the plaintiff, just modified using the configuration panel.

We do not contest that the individual is an expert witness regarding in-game casinos. However, the alleged damages occurred in a virtual casino far from the in-game perspective.

We ask that the court not allow this witness to be submitted for testimony.

 

[xLayzur]

Objection, Your Honor
Hearsay. The screenshot contains out of Court statements by a player who doesn't even play the server. The declarant of these statements cannot be cross examined, and therefore the evidence falls under the definition of hearsay and must be ruled inadmissible.


Objection, Your Honor
Relevance. The generosity of the offer has no bearing on the facts of this case nor the law itself.

Objection overruled, while the statements in the screenshot are from a non-player, they're not being used to prove their truth. Instead, they help establish the context of the events.

 

[xLayzur]

Objection
Breach of Procedure

Counsel was not instructed to speak within the thread before his message by the sitting judge, nor was an objection filed. The defense requested that the statement be struck from the record.

Objection sustained, the record will be struck.

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

Your Honor,

Just because I suffer from acute dyslexia and forget how to draft modern English and misspell words occasionally with horrible grammatical skills, the plaintiff is still required to answer the question as they managed to figure out what I said for the second question. Just because I am bad at English does not give the plaintiff's council the right to 1) insult my bad English skills and 2) Not answer the questions we issue in the discovery period.

Should the plaintiff's council fail to submit a response to my grammatically correct question in my eyes. We formally request the court to levy sanctions against the council for failure to comply with court procedures.

Thank you

DATED: This 1 day of March 2024

Motion to Compel is Granted. Plaintiff is ordered to provide clear responses to the Defendant's questions within [72 Hours]. Failure to comply may result in sanctions imposed by the court.

Objection
Incompetent / Relevance

We object to the basis that the witness made their bot, not using a stock bot that anyone can go and select for the operation of the interwebs. The witness could not testify to the bot's operations described in this case as they again created their bot with their code. The bot being debated in this matter is 'unbelieveboat', a stock bot sourced online, which is not custom-coded in its entirety by the plaintiff, just modified using the configuration panel.

We do not contest that the individual is an expert witness regarding in-game casinos. However, the alleged damages occurred in a virtual casino far from the in-game perspective.

We ask that the court not allow this witness to be submitted for testimony.

Objection sustained, The court finds merit in the argument that the witness's creation and modification of their bot may limit their ability to testify accurately about the operations of the bot in question, "unbelieveboat.". As a result, the court rules that the witness shall not be allowed to testify in this matter.

 

[xLayzur]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

@Stoppers , @LilDigiVert , @supersuperking are to appear before the court in the case of Steveshat v. Keysont Holdings. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in Contempt of Court.​

 

[LilDigiVert]

Present.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Objection sustained, The court finds merit in the argument that the witness's creation and modification of their bot may limit their ability to testify accurately about the operations of the bot in question, "unbelieveboat.". As a result, the court rules that the witness shall not be allowed to testify in this matter.

Objection, Your Honor

Breach of procedure. The plaintiff was not given their full 24 hours to respond to the objection.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

Your Honor,

Just because I suffer from acute dyslexia and forget how to draft modern English and misspell words occasionally with horrible grammatical skills, the plaintiff is still required to answer the question as they managed to figure out what I said for the second question. Just because I am bad at English does not give the plaintiff's council the right to 1) insult my bad English skills and 2) Not answer the questions we issue in the discovery period.

Should the plaintiff's council fail to submit a response to my grammatically correct question in my eyes. We formally request the court to levy sanctions against the council for failure to comply with court procedures.

Thank you

DATED: This 1 day of March 2024

Your honor, I literally do not know what question 1 is asking. I cannot comply if I don't know what's being asked. I ask the Court to please compel the defendant to rephrase the question.

 

[Stoppers]

Present

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, I tender Dartanman as a witness to speak on other matters of this case such as general bot development (applicable to any bot including unbelievaboat) and general casino operation (applicable to any casino including virtual casinos).

 

[Nacho]

Your honor, I literally do not know what question 1 is asking. I cannot comply if I don't know what's being asked. I ask the Court to please compel the defendant to rephrase the question.

Objection
Breach of Procedure

Counsel has failed to format the motion within their request to the court properly. While counsel argues within the court on not understanding our question, he appears to understand the proper formatting requirements for motions. We request that the statement be struck from the record for violating court procedure.

 

[Nacho]

Objection, Your Honor

Breach of procedure. The plaintiff was not given their full 24 hours to respond to the objection.

Objection
Breach of Procedure

Counsel has cited the improper use of breach of procedure. Counsel utilized 'Breach of Procedure' in accordance to court guidelines this objection type is only utilized when a 'party' within the case has violated court procedure. The presiding Judge is not a listed party within the complaint of this case filed by counsel.

As a courtesy to counsel the proper format would be a motion not an objection when addressing the presiding Judge. We request that the statement be struck from the record for violating court procedure.

 

[Nacho]

Your honor, I tender Dartanman as a witness to speak on other matters of this case such as general bot development (applicable to any bot including unbelievaboat) and general casino operation (applicable to any casino including virtual casinos).

Objection
Incompetent / Relevance

We object to the basis that the court has already voiced its opinion on the requested witness as being cited as "(the) witness's creation and modification of their bot may limit their ability to testify accurately about the operations of the bot in question." The court has clearly distinguished that the witness is incompetent on the subject matter related to this case.

We further argue that in this case, it is irrelevant that the requested witness is an expert witness within 'general casino operation' when the only type of casino in question is a virtual casino using the "unbelieveboat" bot as the margin for operations, which this witness does not meet to understand the targeted issue and is not an expert in the field.

We ask that the court not allow this witness to testify.

 

[supersuperking]

Present

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Objection
Incompetent / Relevance

We object to the basis that the court has already voiced its opinion on the requested witness as being cited as "(the) witness's creation and modification of their bot may limit their ability to testify accurately about the operations of the bot in question." The court has clearly distinguished that the witness is incompetent on the subject matter related to this case.

We further argue that in this case, it is irrelevant that the requested witness is an expert witness within 'general casino operation' when the only type of casino in question is a virtual casino using the "unbelieveboat" bot as the margin for operations, which this witness does not meet to understand the targeted issue and is not an expert in the field.

We ask that the court not allow this witness to testify.

Your honor, the witness has developed a casino bot before and is also an expert on bots. He knows the features of unbelievaboat and is qualified to testify about that bot or any other casino-related Discord bot. He can speak to the basic programming that underlies unbelievaboat which is of importance in this trial. The defense is simply trying to suppress any evidence that does not fit their narrative.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Objection
Breach of Procedure

Counsel has cited the improper use of breach of procedure. Counsel utilized 'Breach of Procedure' in accordance to court guidelines this objection type is only utilized when a 'party' within the case has violated court procedure. The presiding Judge is not a listed party within the complaint of this case filed by counsel.

As a courtesy to counsel the proper format would be a motion not an objection when addressing the presiding Judge. We request that the statement be struck from the record for violating court procedure.

Your honor, I assert the Judge is a party as he is involved in this case to some degree.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Objection
Breach of Procedure

Counsel has failed to format the motion within their request to the court properly. While counsel argues within the court on not understanding our question, he appears to understand the proper formatting requirements for motions. We request that the statement be struck from the record for violating court procedure.

Your honor, formatting or not, the request holds true. You may charge me with contempt, but I will not try to "guess" the meaning of a question and answer wrong. In Court, items should be non-ambiguous.

 

[Nacho]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

Your Honor,

Just because I suffer from acute dyslexia and forget how to draft modern English and misspell words occasionally with horrible grammatical skills, the plaintiff is still required to answer the question as they managed to figure out what I said for the second question. Just because I am bad at English does not give the plaintiff's council the right to 1) insult my bad English skills and 2) Not answer the questions we issue in the discovery period.

Should the plaintiff's council fail to submit a response to my grammatically correct question in my eyes. We formally request the court to levy sanctions against the council for failure to comply with court procedures.

Thank you

DATED: This 1 day of March 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

Your Honor,

The plaintiff's counsel has further failed to provide the requested answer to our question within the time of Discovery. We ask the court to levy sanctions against the individual for failure to comply with a simple request.

DATED: This 5th day of March 2024



Thank you

 

[Nacho]

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 has failed to answer a question asked within discovery. Even following a motion to compel the plaintiff, the council has failed to respond to the question.

2. Violation Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories) - The Plaintiff must answer our Interrogatory within 48 hours of filing it. Furthermore, the Plaintiff was given an additional 72 hours following a motion to compel them to respond and still failed.

Request for Dismissal with Prejudice and Legal Fees
The defendant respectfully requests the court to dismiss the entire complaint with prejudice, considering the case's filler has failed to follow basic courtroom procedure. Furthermore, the defendant urges the court to impose legal fees on the plaintiff due to filing an unsubstantiated case.

DATED: This 5th day of March 2024

 

[Dartanboy]

Good day, your honor.

As a Casino Owner, Bot Developer, and even specifically a Casino Bot Developer, as well as my qualifications as an Attorney, I request to file an amicus brief to go over the legality of casinos, and casino bots.

Thank you.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Whenever a new judge is assigned:

Your honor, I motion to restart the interrogatory process over due to misunderstandings between the plaintiff and defense counsels. Questions should be made clear.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

The plaintiff tenders Exhibit G into evidence:

Spoiler: Exhibit G

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Objection, Your Honor
Perjury on defense Exhibit A. The defense submitted fake evidence from a "support" person. First, the forged screenshot contains information contradictory with official staff members. The staff said settings reverting are very highly unlikely while the "support" person "said" that it was likely. We can see the defense's exhibit is fake as well due to the lack of the support emoji next to the user's name, indicating this was an edited screenshot and not an authentic one. I therefore move for defense Exhibit A to be struck and the defense be charged with perjury.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Objection, Your Honor
Perjury on defense Exhibit A. The defense submitted fake evidence from a "support" person. First, the forged screenshot contains information contradictory with official staff members. The staff said settings reverting are very highly unlikely while the "support" person "said" that it was likely. We can see the defense's exhibit is fake as well due to the lack of the support emoji next to the user's name, indicating this was an edited screenshot and not an authentic one. I therefore move for defense Exhibit A to be struck and the defense be charged with perjury.
View attachment 41449
View attachment 41450

Your Honor,
1. Just because 2 different members of staff disagree on the root cause of the bot error does not prove that rhis screenshot is fake.

2. Just because the staff did not have his tags on at that time does not prove that this screenshot is fake.

To my best knowledge the photo I submitted was not faked the opposing cousel has not provided enough proof to prove that without a shadow of a doubt that the evidance is fake.

Thank you,
Your Honor.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Alright, I'm going to keep this plain and simple. All Objections are to be overruled given this case will be dismissed. While yes, the Plaintiff did win the amount in question, if the limit was applied and there was a bug, this does not mean it was at fault of Keystone Holding. Bugs happen and while they are sad when they occur such as with the recent in game issues with the election plugin, it does not excuse the fact that the bug was not there by choice. Many casinos in the past have had these limits in place to prevent from going bankrupt and this is surely no exception.

Again, I sympathize with the Plaintiff however that is not a reason for me to rule in favor of them. I am to analyze the case to see if it has legal basis or is worth a case and I see a lack thereof. Given that this case will be dismissed. The Defendant however should honor a deal that both sides can agree on to refund the amount that was used to bet in good faith (from both sides).

The Federal Court thanks all involved.

 

[RelaxedGV]

I want to clarify that this is granting the Motion to Dismiss. No, I don't have to grant the Defense the ability to respond especially given the grounds of this case were shaky from the start.