Lawsuit: Adjourned Walmart co. v. Olisaurus123 and Montilou [2022] FCR 13

[PiOs67]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Walmart Co (Crusaders at law representing)
officially registered by Redmont Department of Education and Commerce
Plaintiff

v.

Olisaurus123 and Montilou
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
The players Olisaurus and his associates specifically has been targeting many businesses, but Walmart specifically in an incredibly malicious and damaging way.
cjcroft, co-owner of Walmart Co. received a message from the defendant telling me to join the server and check the /cm balance for Walmart, the defendant then repeated the statement and eventually said that they had sold products to the Walmart balance via a closed store that was in construction surrounded by a massive 5 block high wall circling the literal half built store (very evident that it wasn’t open for sales or purchases). Defendant sent to cjcroft screenshots of a method that bankrupted Walmart Co. and caused $16,745.15 in losses which was done by reselling from the brand Walgreens via the site. This malicious activity resulted into Walmart Co. in-game disband, and deactivation of all company chest shops. It is clear and factually qualified, that the defendant drove these malicious activities in order to capture Walmart Co., and take control of all whole company inventory.


I. PARTIES
1. Cjcroft (co-owner of Walmart co.)(plaintiff)
2. sergecool (co-owner of Walmart co.)(plaintiff)
3. Olisaurus123 (defendant)
4. Montilou (defendant)

II. FACTS
1. The defendant and his associate illegally trespassed in a closed shop located on plot c-054 owned by co-owner of company cjcroft. The chest shops have been used to sale $16,745.15 worth of items.

Spoiler: Transaction

2. The transaction has been maliciously driven, in order to provoke the company in-game disband. The defendant replaced original Walmart Co. registered in DEC sub forum, with a false Walmart company.

Spoiler: proof false company

3. Defendant violated the Protect Intellectual Property Act by impersonating Walmart co. and trying to register it on forum using recognizable signs and designs.
official Walmart registration: https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/walmart-co.6976/

Spoiler: false declaration in spite of official Walmart registration

4. Defendant admitted driving these malicious activities in order to take control of all Walmart co. inventory stored into company chest shops. This attempt to obtain illegally a part of the company’s assets have been driven in violation of article 10.1 of the Redmont Code amended by the fraud definition amendment act.

Spoiler: proof discussion with Trentrick

5. This operation leaded to closure of all Walmart shops on Sunday, January 30th due to deactivation of all company chest shops, damaging company reputation and nearly dropped the company value, and worried company’s shareholders. This massive attack has been leaded in order to deflate artificially Walmart value, and make it loosing market shares, profiting to Walmart concurrent the Lemonade Group, hold by defendant, in violation of article 11.2 of the Redmont Code.

Spoiler: discussion with shareholders, #business advert announcements and press articles

Discord - A New Way to Chat with Friends & Communities

Discord is the easiest way to communicate over voice, video, and text. Chat, hang out, and stay close with your friends and communities.

discord.com

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Foundation of Contract Law Act article 6 §1 and §2
“(1) A contract must begin with an offer, this is a unequivocal statement of terms on which you are prepared to do business
(2) It cannot be vague or ambiguous”

2. Protect Intellectual Property act
article 3 “Automatic trademark shall exist for recognisable signs, designs, or expressions which identify companies, products, or services.”
Article 3 ter §1 and §2 “(1) An individual/entity is guilty of Breaching Trademark when they engage in one or more of the following:
- Producing or replicating recognisable signs, designs, or expressions which identify a company, product, or service.
- Impersonating or using recognisable signs, designs, or expressions which identify a company, product, or service.
(2) The punishment for breach of trademark shall be the return of all revenue generated from use of the material to the original owner + reasonable compensation as decided by the courts.

3. Fraud Definition Amendment act:
Article 3 “A dishonest or illegal scheme of successfully obtaining or attempting to obtain something of value.”

4. Corporate Crimes Act:
Article 5 §1 “Market Manipulation: Any act to artificially inflate or deflate the value of a company or stock for personal gain.”


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The unconsented transaction should be declared as null and void. $16,745.15 will return to Walmart Co. All sold items will be returned to the defendants.
2. $900 per day of closure of Walmart locations starting on January 30th
3. $500 for legal fees
4. $200 as emotional distress
5. $1000 for damages on Walmart reputation and stock value

V. Witnesses
1. Trentrick_Lamar
2. Teunt
3. Mercuryellow
4. Xer
5. DEC secretary Thritystone
6. Airco

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 4 day of February 2022

 

[PiOs67]

Crusaders at law as authorized representative

 

[nnmc]

To the Plaintiff’s Counsel:

When you say “Olisaurus123 and associates,” who are the associates you are referring to? I understand that you wish to keep the lawsuit title short by using the term “and associates,” but I do need a full list of defendants provided in order to issue a summons.

Section I of your filing, which lists out the parties, does not indicate the role of each listed person. I would infer from your evidence that Olisaurus123 and Montilou are intended defendants. However, I do not see the involvement of sergecool anywhere even though he is listed as a party.

Would you please inform the court of why Sergecool is listed as party to this case? Would you also please reply with the full list of defendants?

 

[PiOs67]

Good evening your honor,
I brought some clarifications to my post. My apologies if I get you confused.
I hope I have informed the court sufficiently.

 

[nnmc]

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

@Olisaurus123 and @Montilou is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Walmart Co v Olisaurus123 and Montilou.

Failure to appear within 48 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.​

 

[Olisaurus123]

I am present, Your Honor.

 

[Montilou]

I am present, Your Honor.

 

[Montilou]

Would it be possible to have an extension to get in contact with a lawyer?

 

[nnmc]

I will grant you both an extension of 24 hours from the original deadline.

You may choose to each be represented by a different lawyer/law firm, or you may choose to both be represented by the same lawyer/law firm.

 

[Montilou]

Your Honor, I will be representing myself in this suit, separately from Olisaurus123.

 

[Montilou]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Walmart Co (Crusaders at law representing)
officially registered by Redmont Department of Education and Commerce
Plaintiff

v.

Olisaurus123 and Montilou (Seperate lawyers representing)
Defendant(s)

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

1. Looking at fact #1, which is the only fact that I'm directly involved in, we can see that I'm being accused of illegally trespassing onto Walmart property, and then abusing one of their chestshops to sell $16,745.15 worth of items. Firstly, there was not a single "No Trespassing" sign anywhere on the premises. Yes, the building was an active construction site, but there were massive holes in nearly every single wall, and some on the roof, leading to extremely easy access into the building. It was impossible for me to have trespassed if there was no "No Trespassing" signs anywhere. Note that some were added shortly after, but they didn't exist at the time of the sales.

2. Assuming that "The Defendant" is referring to Olisaurus123, I'm not involved in this fact. However, as the screenshot in fact 1 shows, even at the time, we both knew that we weren't selling these items *because* the company behind the chestshops was Walmart. We sold them the items because the price was incredibly good. As for replacing the company, that was not my decision, nor was it me who created the forum post, nor the company in-game.

3. Facts 3 and 4 don't have anything to do with me, but fact 5 directly attacks the company I own 50% of, so here is my statement regarding that fact: As mentioned previously, these sales weren't made with malicious intent. The closure of Walmart stores wasn't a direct product of our actions, rather they were a biproduct of them, considering the fact that the reasoning Walmart gave for the closures was "due to deactivation of all company chest shops", which they could have re-activated had they replaced the signs. As for damaging the company's reputation, and dropping their value, that is not the fault of neither Olisaurus123, nor myself. It isn't your customers' responsibility to make sure that they don't drop your company value by selling you items, it is your responsibility to make sure they're not able to when using your shop, or at least, not permanently.

DATED: This 7th day of February, 2022

 

[nnmc]

The plaintiff has 48 hours to either respond to the motion to dismiss by Montilou or state that they do not wish to respond.

This court still awaits a response from either Olisaurus123 or their legal representative. That is due in less than 12 hours.

 

[PiOs67]

OBJECTION: BREACH OF PROCEDURE
Your honor,
The defendant is presenting in front of this court a “motion to dismiss”. However, it is clear that Montilou is not arguing legally on alleged facts, but answering directly to the plaintiff’s complaint with unproved facts. Considering the courts rules and procedure, the defendant should answer with a motion of dismiss only if he ‘believes that the case is inaccurate and/or frivolous’.
In this case, Montilou is not arguing the dismissal of this case, but is arguing against the complaint with new facts, based only on his words, while he should support the burden of the proof to establish this argumentation.

I’m asking thus the overruling of this motion, and a presentation of a proper answer to complain.

 

[nnmc]

Objection is overruled because by the precedents of numerous cases, an improper motion to dismiss is not generally considered a breach of procedure. Instead, if the plaintiff believes that the motion to dismiss is not proper, they should provide a Response to the Motion to Dismiss explaining such.

 

[nnmc]

Would the plaintiff please re-present their objection, but in the form of a response to the motion to dismiss?

 

[Olisaurus123]

The plaintiff has 48 hours to either respond to the motion to dismiss by Montilou or state that they do not wish to respond.

This court still awaits a response from either Olisaurus123 or their legal representative. That is due in less than 12 hours.

Your Honor, I am requesting another 8 hours from the current deadline as my lawyers completely stopped responding and didn't help enough to make a statement this time will give me enough time to get home and represent myself with an opening statement, or get another lawyer to help with a statement during the time granted.
Thank you

 

[TpersonH]

Your honour I would like to request an extension of 24 hours as Montilou was originally being represented by us and he withdrew. Due to this we have to review and redo our statement.

 

[nnmc]

Your client Olisaurus123 requested 8 hours and you have requested 24 hours. Given that the deadline has already been extended 24 hours, I will reject the request for another 24 hours.

Instead I will grant an extra 12 hours.

 

[Olisaurus123]

Your client Olisaurus123 requested 8 hours and you have requested 24 hours. Given that the deadline has already been extended 24 hours, I will reject the request for another 24 hours.

Instead I will grant an extra 12 hours.

Your Honor, will I need to reply with an opening statement in the next hour to not forfeit?

 

[nnmc]

I will offer you and your legal team some flexibility, this time. I know I said only 12 hours extension but clearly that wasn’t good enough for your legal team. So no, you do not need to make an opening statement in the next hour.

In the future, please consult with your lawyers before requesting an extension so that you know how much time to request.

A FINAL extension is granted for another 12 hours. After that, the court must move on.

 

[Olisaurus123]

I will offer you and your legal team some flexibility, this time. I know I said only 12 hours extension but clearly that wasn’t good enough for your legal team. So no, you do not need to make an opening statement in the next hour.

In the future, please consult with your lawyers before requesting an extension so that you know how much time to request.

A FINAL extension is granted for another 12 hours. After that, the court must move on.

Your Honor.
After being informed about public defenders, I am requesting a public defender, if denied I will represent myself before my extension expires.

 

[Olisaurus123]

I apologize, Your Honor, I withdraw from requesting a public defender, either my lawyer will represent me, or in the case of extension running out, I will represent myself.
Thank you.

 

[Magills0819]

Your Honour, I will be taking over this case from TpersonH. Despite discussion of an opening statement here, I cannot see an answer to complaint or motion to dismiss for Olisaurus, only Montilou. Should not I make an answer to complaint or motion to dismiss before opening statements?

 

[Magills0819]

Consent for Representation

 

[PiOs67]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION OF REBUTTAL AGAINST DEFENDANT MONTILOU

Walmart Co (Crusaders at law representing)
officially registered by Redmont Department of Education and CommercePlaintiff

v.

Olisaurus123 and Montilou (Seperate lawyers representing)
Defendant(s)

Your Honour and opponent party,

Defendant Montilou is pleading that he is only involved in the fact no. 1. I’ll prove the perjury in this allegation. The court could also note the absence of the mandatory statement “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” in Montilou motion to dismiss.

1. Considering the defence provided by Montilou, the defendant clearly admits the fact that he trespassed on plot C-054 by describing very precisely the plot and how he gets into it. However, through the application of the SLATT act, the trespassing offence is defined in this way: “To enter or be in a place without the consent of the owner or management of the place”.

According to this piece of legislation, a sign stating “No trespassing” is not mandatory to qualify an unconsented presence on a plot as trespassing. In this case, the presence of both signs stating “Walmart Capitol COMING SOON” in front of closed doors, and a massive 5 block high wall circling an half-built store (evidences 1 and 3) show clearly the will of the owner cjcroft, to prevent any presence on this plot. The only way to enter this plot was to cross a locked door (evidence 2).

Moreover, the defendant is arguing once again in contradiction with the provided evidence 1, 2 and 3, stating that other signs have been added after the sale, or that there were holes in the walls. A court should not be satisfied with simple words, and such an allegation should be properly proved.

In application of the SLATT act, and considering the provided evidence, defendant Montilou has thus to incur his civil liability in front of this court.


2. First of all “the defendant” is referring to the defendant party, and the plaintiff called both Montilou and Olisorus in front of this court. Montilou can’t use this misinterpretation to prevent the court from engaging his liability.
Then, the defendant is basing his argumentation on the idea that the initiative of replacing the Walmart company on forum was not his decision, and should thus not be responsible of this malicious activity.

we weren't selling these items *because* the company behind the chestshops was Walmart. We sold them the items because the price was incredibly good.

that was not my decision

However, defendant Montilou admitted that he drove this action with Olisaurus through the use of the subject “we” in his sentence. He clearly attests the collusion between Olisaurus and him in this affair. Defendant is, once again, basing his allegations on words, without any evidence to counter the body of evidences provided by the plaintiff. The fact that Montilou provoked with Olisaurus the bankruptcy of Walmart by $7.093 of unconsented sales (evidence 5), that Montilou is co-owner of Lemonade Co., — a Walmart direct concurrent — at 50% with his co-defendant, the fact that Montilou attacked Walmart because of its provoked weakness (see provided evidence), that defendant Montilou admitted in a discussion with witness Mercuryellow his participation in this activity, are proved and eloquent enough to prevent this court from dropping all charges against defendant Montilou.

3. Moreover, the defendant is attacking shameless the integrity of the complaint, as he accused the plaintiff of attacking Lemonade Co. owned 50/50 by both Montilou and Olisaurus. Actually, the plaintiff didn’t drove the parallel through hazard, but based his allegations on ads for Lemonade Co. made by Montilou, attacking directly Walmart (see provided evidence).
However, it seems necessary to precise why the plaintiff didn’t attack directly Lemonade Co. I would like to light the court’s appreciation. The plaintiff would like to attack the action of the managers of the society, drove in their own name and for their personal interest, rather than the society itself, who did not act in its name in this affair.
All these provided evidences clearly show the collusion between both defendants in this case, and the will of defendant Montilou to dismiss this case at any cost, even through perjury.

3.

The closure of Walmart stores wasn't a direct product of our actions, rather they were a biproduct of them

Biproduct or direct product, the defendant may interpret it the way he wants. However, the facts have been proved, that the fault he did by bankrupting Walmart had direct consequences on in-game disband of the company, and thus deactivations of chest shops. A fault which has damaging consequences on somebody should incur the civil liability of the defendant.

The plaintiff will also add that changing the name of the chests couldn’t be a possibility, as the plaintiff have been known and registered as “Walmart company” and did not have at any time to adapt his company name to a malicious attack driven by the defendant Montilou and Olisaurus.

4. Finally, the plaintiff would like to comment this statement: “it is your responsibility to make sure they're not able to when using your shop, or at least, not permanently” Indeed, the defendant is right, and Walmart is totally conscientious of these risks. However, Walmart Co. took all its precautions to prevent anybody from using the chest shops in question. The defendant was not supposed to use them, since they were located on a closed plot. The transaction has been driven in violation of the foundation of contract law act, as the offer was inexistent (see the complaint claim no. 1). This transaction should be made null and void. It is thus hisresponsibility to repair the damages he caused with his action.

 

[nnmc]

Should not I make an answer to complaint or motion to dismiss before opening statements?

My apologies. What I intended to say was an answer to complaint or a motion to dismiss. We are not yet at the opening statements stage of the trial.

I’ll prove the perjury in this allegation.

The perjury objection is overruled because the defendant Montilou only claimed that he was only directly involved in Fact One. This is different than Montilou claiming that he was not at all involved in Facts 2-5.

MOTION TO DISMISS

The motion to dismiss for Montilou is overruled because the plaintiff's case does not appear to be frivolous or inaccurate in a way that would merit dismissal.

and such an allegation should be properly proved.

I will point out that the burden of proof falls on the plaintiff. While the defense may provide proof/evidence as well, it is ultimately your burden to provide the proof for your allegations against the defense.

 

[nnmc]

Once Olisaurus123's lawyer provides the motion to dismiss or answer to complaint, I will respond to that as necessary. After that, I will provide instructions for the opening statement phase of the trial.

 

[Magills0819]

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Walmart Co.
Plaintiff

v.

Olisaurus (Lovely Law Firm Representing)
Defendant

1. Answer to Complaint

(Numbers reference the claims made in the Plaintiff’s Facts section)

1. Disputed. Law 13.6 Trespassing clearly states that in order to be trespassing, you must either receive a “minimum of two warnings” or there to be “a sign”. At the time, there was no sign and no warnings were given.
2. Disputed. Our client merely wanted to sell products, and did not know or intend for the company to disband.
3. Disputed. Because: 1) No Cease and Desist letter was sent, as is required by law (Act of Congress - Intellectual Property Protections Act). 2) We contend that the trademark protection no longer existed due to the company being disbanded in-game.
4. Disputed. What we contend this evidence shows is our client is realising that he has access to the shop chests, which means he can’t have “driv(en)” these acts to be able to access the chests, because he did not know he would gain access, and what’s more, he was attempted to act lawfully, asking whether he could take out the items.
5. Disputed. We dispute the use of the word attack, since our client merely sold products at a ship where there was no sign informing him not to do so. We also dispute that our clients was “lead … in order to” do anything other sell products. As such, we also dispute that there was a violation of Law 11.2. We do agree however, that the company in-game closed, seemingly permanently.

 

[nnmc]

Now that both defendants have responded to the case, we shall proceed to opening statements.

Everyone has 48 hours from now to provide their opening statement. There should be 3 opening statements provided in total: one will be from @PiOs67 for the plaintiff, one will be from @Montilou who is self-representing, and one will be from @Magills0819 for the defendant Olisaurus123

 

[PiOs67]

OBJECTION: perjury

Your Honor,
It seems that the defendant is voluntarily hiding the truth to the court.

Olisurus drove obviously this activity in order to have access to Walmart inventory and damage its reputation, as stated by the defendant in chat.

We also dispute that our clients was “lead … in order to” do anything other sell products.

We do agree however, that the company in-game closed, seemingly permanently.

Also, by answering to this chat ad, the defendant clearly knew that the company closure was not permanent.

 

[Montilou]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Walmart Co (Crusaders at law representing)
PLAINTIFF

v.

Olisaurus123 and Montilou (Seperate lawyers representing)
DEFENDANT

OPENING STATEMENT

1. Law 13.6 - Trespassing "To enter or be in a place without the consent of the owner or management of the place; to remain in the place after being requested to leave (minimum of two warnings or a sign) grants the owner legal authority to initiate PvP provided they can prove that the trespasser was warned."
There were no warnings anywhere that Plot c-054 was not to be entered. This shouldn't even be surprising to the defendant, as he already knew this going into this lawsuit (see screenshot below). Evidence that there was no warnings anywhere will also be attached below.

2. Law 17.11 - Breach of Copyright "Copying an individual's work, reproducing an individual's work, distributing copies of an individual's work, and any other breach as defined in the act.
Per Offence: The return of all revenue generated from use of the material to the original owner + reasonable compensation as decided by the courts."
The in-game company was up for approximately 20 minutes, and was taken down as soon as we heard that the Walmart forum registration already existed, just not on the business portal (see screenshot below). The business portal is where we thought every business was meant to be registered, but we learnt shortly after creating the forum post that Walmart had already registered, just elsewhere. We took both the company, and the forum post down before cjcroft ever logged onto the server, so take that as you will, but personally, those actions don't sound like the actions of people who are maliciously trying to get a company disbanded in order to deflate their value, steal their stock, and steal their company. We made $0 during the brief period that we owned the Walmart company, and we didn't mean for any harm to their company with our actions.

3. Law 10.1 - Fraud "A dishonest or illegal scheme of obtaining something of value."
The "evidence" used to support the claim that we committed fraud was a question that was asked by Olisaurus, out of genuine curiosity. If we really did intend to commit fraud, why would we have asked somebody for permission first? To see if it was allowed? We had access to the majority of the company chest shops, and yet 0 items went missing. We didn't intend to, nor did we commit fraud.

4. Law 11.2 - Market Manipulation "Any act to artificially inflate or deflate the value of a company or stock for personal gain."
There is 0 proof behind this claim. All we did was sell them items in terms of altering company value. We have never invested in Walmart stock, therefore it makes no sense that we could benefit from their stock taking a hit.

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 11th day of February, 2022

 

[PiOs67]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Walmart Co.
Plaintiff

v.

Olisaurus and Montilou
Defendant

Your Honor and opponent party,

All this case finds its roots in the violation of the FCL act. Claim no 1 clearly states that a contract must begin with a clear offer. In this case, the offer did not exist, or was at least uncertain, since landlord cjcroft clearly showed his will to prevent any trespass on his property (evidence for fact no1) by surrounding his plot by 5 block high walls. The chest shops have been used without the consent of the owner.
By the application of this piece of legislation, this unconsented transaction has to be cancelled.

The court is also confronted today to a false interpretation of the SLATT act. This law is very clear concerning trespassing: the only aim of warning or signs consist into granting the owner legal authority to initiate PvP. “To enter or be in a place without the consent of the owner or management of the place” is sufficient to characterize a trespassing offence.
In this case, the walls surrounding the property (evidence for fact no1), show clearly the will of the landlord. I’ll call
there to common sense. Is a hole in a roof or in a wall of the building beyond a 5 meters high barrier a sign of consent from the landlord to let anybody in? Are visitors supposed to enter from the roof? Indeed, there was not any ‘no trespassing’ sign. But is it a defence for a burglar who broke onto a property through an opened window or roof?
Admitting that a landlord should put clear signs rather than a wall to prevent the trespassing on his property will counter the will of the legislator when he created this act, and will create a dangerous precedent, which could jeopardize the property right.

Moreover, this unconsented transaction is a fault, which leaded to dramatic consequences. Both defendants were involved in this transaction (evidence fact no 1) and leaded together to the disband of the company. The link between this action and its consequences is very clear, since the disbanding of the society leaded to disablement of all company chest shops. The closure of Walmart stores impacted the value and the reputation of the society (see press article linked in evidence for fact no 5) This damage has to be repaired by both defendants.

The disbanding of the society in game does not allow the creation of another company, owned by another person. Walmart have been officially registered on DEC sub forum (link bellow fact no 3) and give thus to cjcroft the full right on this trademark. The defendants have been also warned several times by DEC officers for such actions, and was totally aware of the procedure since they own the Lemonade group, registered in DEC. I’ll also precise that the ignorance of the law is never a receivable defence.
Admitting that somebody is allowed to create in game a company which have been already registered by another person could create a dangerous precedent and bring instability to our weakened economy.

In a nutshell, this case is not about two persons wanting to sell their products to make money, but about an odious attempt to weak a concurrent company by selling it $16,745.15 worth of supplies in an unconsented transaction, causing the disbanding of the company. Curiously both defendants created the company in-game and published ads on the forum for their copied Walmart at the same moment. Coincidence? My client doesn’t think so. Defendants clearly acted to take control of all Walmart inventory and damage the reputation of this company. However, it is indeed very hard to prove in front of a court a malicious intention, but witnesses will bring all the light on this affair.

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 11 day of February 2022

 

[nnmc]

OBJECTION: perjury

This objection is overruled because no fundamental facts have been misrepresented to a degree that could be considered perjury.

 

[Magills0819]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OPENING STATEMENT


Your Honour, opposing counsel,

This case is not about whether or not Walmart had to close, or even if our client was responsible for whether Walmart had to close, these facts are not in dispute. What is at issue in this case however, is whether our client acted unlawfully. This court cannot compel my client to pay for damages unless they find that he acted unlawfully. So what will we show in regards to whether our client’s actions were lawful?

Firstly, we will show that our client did not trespass on plot C-054.

Secondly, we will show that our client did not unlawfully use the freely-available chest-shop on C-054.

Thirdly, we will prove that our client did not violate copyright, nor receive a Cease and Desist letter.

Fourthly, we will prove that our client did not aim “take control of all Walmart co. inventory stored into company chest shops” or force it out of business, or have prior knowledge he would force Walmart Co. out of business.

Fifthly, we will prove our client did not engage in market manipulation.

Thank you.

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 11th day of February 2022

 

[nnmc]

Thank you everyone for your opening statements. We will now proceed to witnesses and testimonies.

You all have 24 hours from now to inform the court if you have any witnesses to call, or to state that you have no witnesses.

 

[PiOs67]

Your Honor,
I would like to call the following persons to the bar:
1. Trentrick_Lamar
2. Teuntje1234567
3. Mercuryellow
4. xerxesmc
5. Thritystone
6. Airco

 

[Magills0819]

We would like to call Olisaurus and Vernicia.

 

[Montilou]

Your Honor,

I have no witnesses to call to the bar.

 

[Trentrick_Lamar]

Pardon my informality since I'm unfamiliar with the court process but yeah I'm here

 

[xerxesmc]

I am present and have familiarized myself with the case.

 

[nnmc]

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

@Trentrick_Lamar @Teuntje1234567 @Mercuryellow @xerxesmc @Thatsushidude @A__C @Olisaurus123 @Vernicia is required to appear as a witness before the Federal Court in the case of Walmart Co v Olisaurus123 and Montilou. Please familiarize yourself with the case as it stands at present. You will receive questions and may also be cross-examined.

I am hereby informing each witness to ensure they are aware of the provisions of the law of perjury and its severity. Giving knowingly false testimony is highly illegal. Witnesses are required to tell the truth in their testimonies, pursuant of the Perjury Act.

Once the witnesses have been questioned, the opposing party will have the opportunity to cross-examine.
​

 

[nnmc]

Once 48 hours have elapsed, I will issue instructions for how witness questions will work. Given the high number of witnesses and the fact that we have 3 legal representatives instead of the usual 2, I ask everyone to be patient and understanding. For now, I would just like each witness to state that they are present; no questions are to be asked yet by any of the legal representatives.

 

[A__C]

Your Honor, I am here.

I am also not entirely familiar with the court process but I will give my testimony as truthfully as I can.

 

[Teuntje1234567]

Your Honor, I am also here.

Same as with A__C, I am not entirely familiar with the court, but I will give my testimony as good as I can.

 

[Olisaurus123]

Your Honor, I am also here.

 

[Vernicia]

I am present ,i am familiar with the case but unfamiliar with the court rules

 

[Mercuryellow]

Same as the others, I am present, not entirely familiar with court processes but I'm familiar with the case

 

[Thritystone_]

You Honor, I Thritystone am Present

 

[nnmc]

Thank you to all of the witnesses for their quick responses. For the witnesses expressing their lack of understanding of the court rules and procedures, I assure you that it is not complicated. As witnesses, you are only expected to answer questions truthfully. It is possible that a lawyer will ask a question, an opposing lawyer will object to the question for being against court rules, and that I sustain the objection and the question is struck from the record. If a question is objected to and I have not responded to the objection yet, you may if you wish go ahead and answer the question, but I may strike your response from the record if I end up sustaining the objection. If I have struck down a question before you answer, then of course do not answer it.

Now we will begin with questioning. @PiOs67 we will start with your direct examination of your 6 witnesses that you called. I would ask that the Plaintiff provides a list of all the questions they want answered by each witness in a single post. If some questions need to be withheld as they depend on answers given to earlier questions, that is also considered reasonable. When the Plaintiff is ready, they may post questions to the witnesses.

 

[Hamhamham420]

 

[nnmc]

@Hamhamham420 you know how this goes.

I hereby find you in contempt of court and order the Department of Justice to issue the appropriate fine and/or jail time.

 

[PiOs67]

Good evening your Honor,

Before I begin the questions, I would like to reiterate my perjury objection after reading again the "motion to dismiss" of defendant Montilou. With all the due respect, it is clearly stated by the defendant "Facts 3 and 4 don't have anything to do with me" (§3). However, you based your argumentation against perjury as follow "The perjury objection is overruled because the defendant Montilou only claimed that he was only directly involved in Fact One. This is different than Montilou claiming that he was not at all involved in Facts 2-5."
In fact, the defendant clearly stated that he was not involved in.

Then, I would like to oppose an objection of relevance against the summon of defendant Olisaurus as a witness. Considering that a council is an agent, he agrees and is authorized to act on behalf of another. The client is fully represented by its council, who is acting on his behalf. Defendant Olisaurus is actually speaking through his council magills, and don't have any interest to speak otherwise than through his agent. This point of law is uncertain and needs to be clearly decided.

Finally, I apologize but a warrant have been recently accepted. I will need to wait for the results of the investigations driven by the staff before beginning the questions to the witnesses.

Thank you

 

[nnmc]

My ruling on your perjury objection still stands. Montilou is allowed to claim innocence in a case against him, especially given the screenshots attached to Facts 3 and 4 do not show his name at all. I cannot find Montilou guilty of perjury for trying to defend himself and claim innocence; that would ruin the point of the court system.

Precedent is clear that while Olisaurus may not be called as witness by an opposing lawyer, his own lawyer may choose to call him to testify. Your objection against Olisaurus being a witness is overruled.

Please provide your questions to the witnesses as soon as possible after that warrant is carried out.

 

[PiOs67]

Your Honor, witnesses and opponent party,

First of all, I would like to thank all the summoned witnesses for the time they accepted to spend in front of this court.
I'll ask you to answer the following questions, and to base as much as possible your answers on evidences.

To all witnesses called by the plaintiff:

1. Were Olisaurus123 and Montilou aware of DEC procedures to create a company? In particular, were them aware of the obligation to be registered to create a company in-game?
2. Basing on the DEC ticket opened by cjcroft, can you assume that Olisaurus and Montilou lead these activities in a malicious way? Can you provide further evidences to this court?
3. Did Olisaurus and Montilou used the same scheme on other businesses?
4. Was Montilou directly involved in this activity?
5. Did you noticed any impact of this activity on the reputation of Walmart Co.?
6. Did you noticed through Olisaurus’ and Montilou’s behavior, a will to disband Walmart Co.?
7. Some of you in the DEC ticket categorized this activity as corporate espionnage. On what are you basing this appreciation?

To Trent

1. Have Walgreen been impacted by this activity?
2. Can you assume that the defendants admitted that he drove this activity in a malicious way?
3. Based on your discussion with Olisaurus, did the defendant want to act lawfully, or did he ask a way to gain the access to the chest shops?

To Mercuryellow:

1. Considering the discussion you had with defendant Montilou, can you assume that he is involved in this activity? How?
2. Can you assume that Montilou took the decision with Olisaurus to create the forum post?

To former secretary Thritystone, and present secretary xer called as experts:

1. Based on your experience as DEC secretary, have you seen any similar activity to this case?
2. If so, is this kind of behavior seen as fraud or breach of trademark? Is it prosecuted by DEC officers?
3. Can this court admit the right to create companies in game without being officially registered by the DEC? Why?

Thank you

 

[Trentrick_Lamar]

GENERAL QUESTIONS:

1. Were Olisaurus123 and Montilou aware of DEC procedures to create a company? In particular, were them aware of the obligation to be registered to create a company in-game?

If I recall correctly: at the time Olisaurus had Lemonade registered and, by virtue of this, he has to have been made aware of the procedure. There is no way for him to have registered his company otherwise. I cannot say the same of Montilou definitively.

2. Basing on the DEC ticket opened by cjcroft, can you assume that Olisaurus and Montilou lead these activities in a malicious way? Can you provide further evidences to this court?

I do believe that both were but can only definitely say so for Olisaurus due to a lack of evidence otherwise. This is on the basis that: (i) Olisaurus crawled over what was clearly a construction wall, whether or not there was a posted notice, in order to engage in mass sales after purchasing product off me; (ii) after engaging in mass sales Olisaurus re-created the company; (iii) after recreating the company Olisaurus messaged me asking whether or not he would have access to company chests; and (iv) Olisaurus, despite knowing he would not be able to retain the company, put up a company registration form in the DEC subforum out of what we can assume was spite for the DEC and in an attempt to cause trouble which led to the registration having to be forcibly removed due to his not removing the post himself.

The conclusion to draw is that Olisaurus purposefully targeted Walmart for their obsidian and enchantment table prices after noticing the contrast in prices between the two storefronts Walgreens and Walmart and it is likely that, after a certain point, he simply decided he would take the company and its assets. i.e. taking the company and its assets was secondary to mass selling and was an afterthought to the process.

3. Did Olisaurus and Montilou used the same scheme on other businesses?

Not to my knowledge.

4. Was Montilou directly involved in this activity?

Yes. He and Olisaurus both purchased obsidian from me and both sold to Walmart.

5. Did you noticed any impact of this activity on the reputation of Walmart Co.?

It, as a direct result, spurred needless speculation on the market value of Walmart based on a loss of company funds which consequently led to several individuals seeking to sell off Walmart shares upon news reaching the public. It must be remembered that company balance is hardly what makes up the vast majority of a company's value so a loss in company funds would cause a fairly small loss in market value. This, by the very nature of the market, would inevitably lead to actual losses on behalf of Walmart despite their market value having not been affected--if at all, negligibly--by this series of events.

6. Did you noticed through Olisaurus’ and Montilou’s behavior, a will to disband Walmart Co.?

Through the fact that Olisaurus was bragging about the bankruptcy of Walmart I believe that at least one of them had a will to do this. What I am noticing, if I am going to be frank, is that Montilou was a lot smarter about this than Oli was.

7. Some of you in the DEC ticket categorized this activity as corporate espionnage. On what are you basing this appreciation?

I refuse to call it that. The definition of corporate espionage is as follows:

"Any parties participating in, or accessory to the gathering, infiltration, or compromise of any sensitive company information that has not already been released to the public under the instruction of the company's controlling interest."

No company information was released to the public. I would say it is more akin to fraud due to it being dishonest for them to say they were unaware of the wall having been put there for construction and they most certainly obtained something of value as a result. You could even make a frivolous argument that this was market manipulation by virtue of that law's definition:

"Any act to artificially inflate or deflate the value of a company or stock for personal gain."

They sought to deflate the value of Walmart through the mass selling of obsidian and enchantment tables in order to financially gain off their loss.

QUESTIONS FOR ME:

1. Have Walgreen been impacted by this activity?

No. They have not targeted Walgreens because it is difficult to find things you can profit on by selling to me on the basis that I basically am the server's wholesaler.

2. Can you assume that the defendants admitted that he drove this activity in a malicious way?\​

​

Without a shadow of a doubt. Bragging about the activity in global chat is not a sign of innocence.

3. Based on your discussion with Olisaurus, did the defendant want to act lawfully, or did he ask a way to gain the access to the chest shops?​

​

He was very clearly asking me if he has the legal right to take things from the chest shop as a result of having taken the company name.

 

[Mercuryellow]

General Questions:
1.Were Olisaurus123 and Montilou aware of DEC procedures to create a company? In particular, were them aware of the obligation to be registered to create a company in-game?

Unsure about Montilou but Olisaurus must have been to have registered Lemonade, along with that, to my recollection he created the walmart forum post after he was reminded of this fact. Which I take to be maliciously attempting to take over the company.

2. Basing on the DEC ticket opened by cjcroft, can you assume that Olisaurus and Montilou lead these activities in a malicious way? Can you provide further evidences to this court?

I'd say there are a few parts to this. (a) Trespassing in the store and selling items, which they both definitely did, even if there were holes in the construction wall or the roof, trespassing is trespassing. (b) the remaking of the company in game and on forums, I thought this was purely a part of Olisaurus since the post and company was made by them, however I spoke to Montilou and I do believe the recreation in game involved both parties, however the forum post was caused by Olisaurus (see screenshot 1). I believe this to be malicious, especially on Olisaurus' part, due to how he asked trent and opened a ticket asking about information, and still did it. Montilou also was under the impression that cj had some personal vendetta against the two of them, I don't know what that is about but I believe that could be related to them targeting walmart this time. (see screenshot 2)

3. Did Olisaurus and Montilou used the same scheme on other businesses?

Not to my knowledge

4. Was Montilou directly involved in this activity?

I addressed this in previous questions, in the tresspassing, disbanding and recreation of the company in game? Yes, in the forum post? No

5. Did you noticed any impact of this activity on the reputation of Walmart Co.?

I personally didn't, however I don't tend to hang around in the discord or in game too much, so I do tend to miss things.

6. Did you noticed through Olisaurus’ and Montilou’s behavior, a will to disband Walmart Co.?

I believe so, as Oli was publicly stating how he disbanded it, in my opinion if they thought 'oh I shouldn't have done that' they, mainly Olisaurus, wouldn't have been publicly saying that he had done.

7. Some of you in the DEC ticket categorized this activity as corporate espionnage. On what are you basing this appreciation?

I did not say that, nor do I think that, I don't believe recreating the company in game, legally or not, would've given either of them access to information about the existing company.


Questions for me:

1. Considering the discussion you had with defendant Montilou, can you assume that he is involved in this activity? How?

I believe I have addressed this in previous questions. Prior to my discussion with him I thought he wasn't really involved at all really besides selling items in the closed store, however while addressing the recreation of the company, he uses the word 'we', which solidifies that he was involved in more than I thought.

2. Can you assume that Montilou took the decision with Olisaurus to create the forum post?

I don't think so personally, mainly because during my discussion with Montilou, he seemed to find it just as bad of an idea as we did. (see screenshots)

 

[A__C]

1. Were Olisaurus123 and Montilou aware of DEC procedures to create a company? In particular, were them aware of the obligation to be registered to create a company in-game?
No. Olisaurus, at least, did not. Olisaurus made a new in-game company called Walmart and attempted to register it on the Business Portal after he realized he needed to do so. But then he retracted his business registration after learning of the fact that it had to be approved and could not be approved until the previously registered one was disbanded. If it helps, there is a screenshot of the business registration before it was deleted. I think I or someone else explained this which lead to Olisaurus retracting the registration.

2. Basing on the DEC ticket opened by cjcroft, can you assume that Olisaurus and Montilou lead these activities in a malicious way? Can you provide further evidences to this court?
I'd say it's possible, considering Olisaurus created a Walmart with the companies plugin in-game shortly after it was disbanded due to his own actions. He then proceeded to try and register it officially. It may have been to steal the Walmart brand name from the previous owner. However I would say the evidence isn't particularly strong.
Olisaurus did also wonder if he could access the company chestshops under the c:Walmart tag. It may have been an attempt to steal the items, though he was unable to access it.

3. Did Olisaurus and Montilou used the same scheme on other businesses?
Not that I'm aware of.

4. Was Montilou directly involved in this activity?
Not that I'm aware of.

5. Did you noticed any impact of this activity on the reputation of Walmart Co.?
Reputation, I do not know either. I know that there has been ads about "shop at c-380 while Walmart is down!" so while this might not be impacting the reputation, it may be impacting Walmart in other ways.

6. Did you noticed through Olisaurus’ and Montilou’s behavior, a will to disband Walmart Co.?
Referencing my answer to the second question, considering they (or at least one of them) planned on registering it with them as the owner(s), I would say that it does appear that they were trying to disband cjcroft's Walmart Co.

7. Some of you in the DEC ticket categorized this activity as corporate espionnage. On what are you basing this appreciation?
I did not mention anything about corporate espionage, so I will refrain from answering this question.

 

[Magills0819]

Objection: Speculation

We object to General Questions 1, 2 and 6 on the grounds of speculation. The Plaintiff is asking the witnesses to testify about they think the Defendants believe. That is for this Court to decide, based on the evidence. Witnesses can only testify about their own actions and thoughts, not the thoughts of others.

We also object to questions 2 and 3 for Trentrick Lamar on the same grounds.

Objection: Relevance

We object to General Question 1 on the grounds of relevance. In a similar vein to above, whether witnesses believe the Defendants committed a crime is not relevant, that is for this Court to decide.

We also object to all questions for the expert witnesses on the grounds of relevance. What these witnesses believe the law is, and what actions they believe this Court should take, regardless of their expertise, is not relevant, as this Court is to decide these issues.

 

[PiOs67]

ANSWER TO OBJECTION

Your Honor,
It seems that the defendant council waited for the answers of summoned witnesses, and 12 hours later, seeing that the witnesses disagreed with his point of view, opened his objection guide, and proposed all the possible objections to disturb both this case and witnesses, and prevent them for putting the spotlight on this complex issue.
Then, I would like to answer point after point to his ‘objections’.

Question 1: This question is explicitly based on what the witnesses saw as DEC officers at the moment of the facts. They are perfectly aware of the DEC registration procedure, and the fact that Olisaurus and Montilou are owning a company registered at the DEC.

Question 2: As DEC officers at the moment of the fact, the witnesses have been seized to give their opinion on this issue. The defendant can interpret this the way he wants, but calling members of the government for their experience and asking them to base their answer only on what they saw doesn’t seem to be really speculation.

Question 6: Actually, witnesses assisted to what happened and where totally immersed in this case. This question is only asking to witnesses to give their personal thoughts concerning theses facts they directly observed through an official request addressed to a government agency by ticket system.

Questions to Trentrick: I would like to remind the defendant that this witness have been directly contacted by the defendant Olisaurus. Moreover, as CEO of Walgreen Co., trent directly observed the defendants scheme, who bought Walgreen’s obsidian to reset them illegally to the plaintiff (see witness statement).

The Question 1 is fully relevant, since the defendant himself is arguing that he was totally not aware of the DEC registration procedure, which it could be interpreted as perjury since he already registered himself his business.

Moreover, I don’t know where the defendant is finding a question to witnesses asking if the defendant committed a crime, I would like to remind kindly the defendant that we are in a civil procedure initiated to engage his civil liability, not criminal one. Only questions to experts are simply asking them if this behavior is seen as a crime by DEC.

Concerning questions to expert, it is the pot calling the kettle black, to be frank. The defendant is constantly arguing from the beginning of this case about how the court should interpret the SLATT act. The relevance in this question is to bring to this affair another point of view. Not mine, not defendants’ one, but simply the point of view of experienced DEC officers. I would like also to remind the defendant that, in virtue of our constitution, the peoples of the Commonwealth of Redmont opted for a strong system of separation of power. This court should not, and will never be bound by an interpretation of the law given by a department officer.

Thank you.

 

[Magills0819]

Can I respond to that, Your Honour, given the accusations made by the Plaintiff?

 

[nnmc]

It seems that the defendant council waited for the answers of summoned witnesses, and 12 hours later, seeing that the witnesses disagreed with his point of view, opened his objection guide, and proposed all the possible objections to disturb both this case and witnesses, and prevent them for putting the spotlight on this complex issue.
Then, I would like to answer point after point to his ‘objections’.

Be more respectful towards opposing counsel. Magills has a right to make objections as per the established rules of the court. Furthermore, you have also made several objections throughout the trial, and no opposing counsel launched a personal attack against you for that. Show that same respect back to them.

Can I respond to that, Your Honour, given the accusations made by the Plaintiff?

I assume you are wishing to respond to the plaintiff’s personal attacks. I have already dealt with that. As far as responding further on the objections, I see no need. You have already explained your objections once and PioS has already rebutted once. Neither of you are to make any further comment on these objections. I will respond to them later today.

Witnesses may continue to answer questions meanwhile, since no questions have yet been struck down.

 

[nnmc]

Objection: Speculation

We object to General Questions 1, 2 and 6 on the grounds of speculation.

The speculation objection to questions 2 and 6 are sustained. The speculation objection to question 1 is overruled. Question 1 is asking the witnesses about something they would have seen in their capacity as DEC employees, and so I find this question allowable. On the other hand, questions 2 and 6 are asking the witnesses what they think the intent of the defendants was, and I see that as pure speculation.

We also object to questions 2 and 3 for Trentrick Lamar on the same grounds.

That objection is sustained because again it asks a witness about the intentions of someone else.

Objection: Relevance

We object to General Question 1 on the grounds of relevance. In a similar vein to above, whether witnesses believe the Defendants committed a crime is not relevant, that is for this Court to decide.

We also object to all questions for the expert witnesses on the grounds of relevance. What these witnesses believe the law is, and what actions they believe this Court should take, regardless of their expertise, is not relevant, as this Court is to decide these issues.

The relevance objections for Mercuryyellow's questions are sustained because the witness's thoughts on intentions are not relevant and are also speculative. All other relevance objections are overruled.

 

[nnmc]

@xerxesmc @Thatsushidude @Teuntje1234567 please respond to the questions within 24 hours, or else you will be held in contempt of court.

 

[Teuntje1234567]

1. Were Olisaurus123 and Montilou aware of DEC procedures to create a company? In particular, were them aware of the obligation to be registered to create a company in-game?
   They messaged me asking if they could create a company with the name of a company that no longer exists, I responded with yes, however I also told them that they needed to apply with the company on the forums before creating them in game.
2. Basing on the DEC ticket opened by cjcroft, can you assume that Olisaurus and Montilou lead these activities in a malicious way? Can you provide further evidences to this court?
   I saw they tried to register it officially on the forums, that might have been an attempt to fully "steal" the company. They also messaged me (and some others iirc) if they could take out items from the chestshops of Walmart, as they were able to as they created the Walmart company just after it got disbanded.
3. Did Olisaurus and Montilou used the same scheme on other businesses?
   Not as far as I'm aware.
   
   
4. Was Montilou directly involved in this activity?
   Not as far as I'm aware.
5. Did you noticed any impact of this activity on the reputation of Walmart Co.?
   I've seen some ads saying "shop at c-380 wile Walmart is down", and Olisaurus saying "that was me!!^" after Cj posted an ad to say that walmart is currently down.
6. Did you noticed through Olisaurus’ and Montilou’s behavior, a will to disband Walmart Co.?
   I guess so yes, Olisaurus tried to officially register Walmart after already creating the company in game. This leads me to believe that they indeed tried to disband the original Walmart Co.
7. Some of you in the DEC ticket categorized this activity as corporate espionnage. On what are you basing this appreciation?
   Those were not my words, so I believe I can skip this question.
   
   
   Sorry for my late response, forgot to check up on this case.

 

[nnmc]

@xerxesmc @Thatsushidude you are both held in contempt of court. I hereby order the Justice Department to issue the appropriate fine and/or jail time.

@PiOs67 Do you have any further questions to ask your witnesses? Please respond within 24 hours, but less than that would be ideal.

 

[xerxesmc]

I apologize, I did not see the second page of questions. Below I have included my answers.

1. To the best of my knowledge, I have not witnessed someone try to take someone else’s company in game maliciously.
2. This is definitely fraudulent. All citizens of Hamilton know that you must apply for a company on the forum before creating it in game. By attempting to “buy out” a company without their consent is breaking the law.
3. The DEC gages company ownership by the forum. In game companies are only for economical purposes and not administration. For instance, anytime a company gets a new owner, the old owner will post that under the original company thread, because that is how we log all company activity. Oli did not even attempt to register Walmart on the forum (not that it would have been accepted as it already existed), but instead just created it in game, which holds no actual value other than trying to be sneaky and hoping he wouldn’t have been caught.

 

[nnmc]

Given that 24 hours have elapsed since I asked if there was any further direct examination from the plaintiff, and the plaintiff has not responded, I will be moving on with this case.

@Montilou @Magills0819 you may now cross-examine the plaintiff’s 6 witnesses. Please post your questions within 24 hours, or state that you have no questions.

 

[PiOs67]

Your honor and opponent council,

Being convinced of the right to each citizen to have access to a fair trial, like stated in the constitution, being convinced of the quality of the justice and its judges, I regret to come to such an extremity.

However, considering, from the beginning of this trial, the lack of justification in answers to objections, the positions took by the presiding judge, the relations between the presiding judge, and defendant council magills, respectively former and present member of the same law firm, me and my client have good reasons to think that the fairness of this trial is not as qualitative as it is supposed to be.

Thus, by the application of our constitution, I hereby ask to presiding judge nnmc a motion to recuse.
The time wasted in this court case since the beginning of this trail is indecent, and nobody have interest to carry on while arguments are not confronted or just ignored. Justice is a venerable institution, where ideas are supposed to be confronted and discussed to find a solution. I do not have the feeling that it is the image given in this case to our fellow citizens. And this is not serving this Institution.
Because this case deserves it, because witnesses took their time to answer properly to the questions and need to be a minimum respected, because any litigant deserves it and has the right to understand on what basis an objection have been sustained or overruled.

Thank you.

 

[nnmc]

I am declining the motion to recuse. I believe I have offered sufficient explanations on all of my rulings on objections. Furthermore, while Magills and I are former colleagues, that was several months ago and we did not work together often, due to time zone differences.

 

[Montilou]

I have no questions, Your Honor.

 

[Magills0819]

At this point we have a question for Trentrick Lamar:

You claim that my clients actions were “akin to fraud”. Were or were they not fraud, in your opinion?

And one for zerxesme:

Are your responses those that you have decided based on your experiences and this court case, or were they already decided when you responded to a ticket created by my client in relation to this matter?

 

[PiOs67]

I am declining the motion to recuse. I believe I have offered sufficient explanations on all of my rulings on objections. Furthermore, while Magills and I are former colleagues, that was several months ago and we did not work together often, due to time zone differences.

I hereby appeal this decision to the Chief Justice.

 

[nnmc]

The Chief Justice will respond at his earliest convenience.

In the meantime, @xerxesmc and @Trentrick_Lamar have 24 hours to answer the questions asked.

 

[End]

MOTION TO RECUSE FEDERAL COURT JUDGE NNMC
IN THE CASE OF WALMART CO. v OLISAURUS & MONTILOU

Having individually reviewed each decision made by Judge Nnmc, I am satisfied that the rulings handed down have been in accordance with the laws of the nation and procedures of this institution.

Reasons for Recusal
A Judge may be recused under the following circumstances:
● Interest in the subject matter, or relationship with someone who is interested in it
● Background or experience, such as the Judge’s prior work as a lawyer
● Personal knowledge about the parties, or the facts of the case
● Ex parte communications with lawyers, or non-lawyers
● Rulings, comments, or conduct

Colleagues
On the point of a perceived relationship between the Defendant and Judge Nnmc, I refer to Prodigium Partners at Law v _Austin27_ [2021] FCR 11, where Former Judge Matt_S0 provided the following verdict on a similar motion to dismiss:

The Judiciary has an obligation to be impartial, and individuals are nominated on the basis that they can perform their duties with impartiality and integrity. As such, the burden of proof falls to the accuser that a recuse is necessary, and any proof has to be overwhelming, given the severity of such an allegation. A successful motion to recuse is not to be discounted as something of negligible importance - a successful motion would demonstrate not only a Judge’s partiality within the matter but also incompetence in accepting the case when not necessary and damage trust in the Judiciary. I simply do not find the evidence before the Court to be of the required compelling nature to reach the standard required for such a motion.

Rulings
On the point of failing to provide sufficient justification to rulings throughout the case, I am satisfied that Judge Nnmc has provided the Plaintiff with satisfactory explanations. The justification was concise and to-the-point in each ruling. I would consider the justification free from any impropriety and in-line with the minimum expectations of a ruling response.

Remarks
Based on the current known facts of the case, as Chief Justice, I hereby overrule the motion to recuse Judge Nnmc from this case.

Thank you for your time.​

 

[xerxesmc]

At this point we have a question for Trentrick Lamar:

You claim that my clients actions were “akin to fraud”. Were or were they not fraud, in your opinion?

And one for zerxesme:

Are your responses those that you have decided based on your experiences and this court case, or were they already decided when you responded to a ticket created by my client in relation to this matter?

This has always been the case of how the DEC operates since I joined 8+ months ago. My experiences have further cemented this. Please let me know if this answered your question(s) sufficiently.

 

[Trentrick_Lamar]

At this point we have a question for Trentrick Lamar:

You claim that my clients actions were “akin to fraud”. Were or were they not fraud, in your opinion?

And one for zerxesme:

Are your responses those that you have decided based on your experiences and this court case, or were they already decided when you responded to a ticket created by my client in relation to this matter?

I chose my words purposefully. I meant quite literally "akin to fraud". There is nothing more to it than that. Keep this in mind later on in the case because I do not like to chop words and like to be literal and concise.

 

[nnmc]

Do you have any further cross examination questions? @Magills0819

 

[Magills0819]

Yes, I have another two questions for xerxesmc based on his answer.

So do you contend that your testimony was not influenced by the discussion around my clients actions that you had with him in this ticket, (https://tickettool.xyz/direct?url=h...7/937419474414473226/transcript-dec-0221.html), which clearly frustrated you? Do you also contend that this did not cause you to have any bias against my client, who you seemed to believe wasted your time in that ticket?

 

[xerxesmc]

No I do not have bias. At the end of the day, what he did was illegal and honestly disrespectful. If I witnessed that on either side I would come forward with it as I have in this case. Whether I was frustrated or not does not change the legality of the situation.

 

[nnmc]

@Magills0819 If you have any follow-up questions, you may ask them. Otherwise, inform the court that there are no further questions.

 

[Magills0819]

I have no further questions, Your Honour.

 

[nnmc]

We will now move on to direct examination of the defense witnesses, @Olisaurus123 and @Vernicia

@Magills0819 please state your questions for these 2 witnesses within 24 hours.

 

[nnmc]

@Montilou Given that you are a defendant as well, I will also allow you to direct examine these 2 witnesses if you wish. Please ask questions within 24 hours or say that you have none.

 

[Montilou]

I have no questions, Your Honor.

 

[Magills0819]

Questions for Olisaurus

1. Were you ever sent a Cease and Desist letter concerning your use of the Walmart name and symbol?
2. Were there any signs on the plot asking you not to enter, or to sell items to the chestshop?
3. Did you intend to bankrupt or takeover Walmart at the time you sold items to the chest-shop?
4. Did you take anything from the Walmart chests after you created the company in-game?

Given changes in the case since we called Vernicia as a witness, we no longer have any questions for them.

 

[Olisaurus123]

Questions for Olisaurus

1. Were you ever sent a Cease and Desist letter concerning your use of the Walmart name and symbol?
2. Were there any signs on the plot asking you not to enter, or to sell items to the chestshop?
3. Did you intend to bankrupt or takeover Walmart at the time you sold items to the chest-shop?
4. Did you take anything from the Walmart chests after you created the company in-game?

Given changes in the case since we called Vernicia as a witness, we no longer have any questions for them.

1. I was never sent a cease or desist letter, nor any message regarding the forum post registering for the company Walmart during the period it was up.

2. There were no signs at the time of entering, that said I'm not allowed to enter.

3. No, I simply used the chest shop because it was a fantastic deal compared to the price of the resources that it cost to make the item they were buying.

4. No, I did not take any items from any of the chests after the company was created in game.

 

[nnmc]

@Magills0819 If needed, you have another 24 hours to ask follow-up questions.

 

[Magills0819]

I have no further questions, Your Honour.

 

[nnmc]

@PiOs67 You have 24 hours from now to cross examine Olisaurus123 if you would wish to do so.

 

[PiOs67]

Thank you your Honor.

Questions to Olisaurus:
1. On what basis are you assuming that you were not aware of DEC procedures since you have been informed of this by xerxesmc? (see ticket extract bellow)
2. Basing on server logs provided by staff, why did you advertise the connected players to come to Walmart's plot and sell their stuff? (see logs bellow)

Line 4530: [12:18:37] [Craft Scheduler Thread - 1337 - VentureChat/INFO]: L | Trainee Doctor Olisaurus123 » come c-054
Line 8527: [12:17:30] [Server thread/INFO]: Olisaurus123 issued server command: /msg Vernicia come to c-054 I show you
Line 458774: [18:32:48] [Craft Scheduler Thread - 2797 - VentureChat/INFO]: G | Trainee Doctor Olisaurus123 » Milqy come c-054
Line 409101: [18:29:39] [Craft Scheduler Thread - 2795 - VentureChat/INFO]: G | Trainee Doctor Olisaurus123 » come to c-054, this is where I sold 16k worth of enchantment tables
Line 431168: [18:31:04] [Craft Scheduler Thread - 2789 - VentureChat/INFO]: G | Trainee Doctor Olisaurus123 » AB6A5SI u coming c-054

 

[Magills0819]

Objection: Hearsay

Question 1 uses an out-of-court statement (by xerxesmc) used to prove the truth of the matter asserted (that our client was aware of DEC procedures) as it’s basis.

Objection: Improper Evidence

Question 2 uses text of the alleged logs, which may have been modified. The Plaintiff should have provided a screenshot of that information being provided by staff.

 

[nnmc]

@PiOs67 if you wish to do so, you have 24 hours from now to rebut the objections.

 

[PiOs67]

Thank you your Honor,
I would like to rebute strongly these objections, for the following reasons:

Hearsay: This is not an out of context statement but a discussion between Olisaurus and DEC, in an official and government approved facility to solve issues concerning firms administration.
I would like to remind simply the definition of hearsay: When a witness testifies about a statement made by another person, and uses contents of the statement to prove a fact true or false.

1) Xerxes have been summoned as a witness but did not answer my first question, which should totally solve this issue: Were Olisaurus123 and Montilou aware of DEC procedures to create a company? In particular, were them aware of the obligation to be registered to create a company in-game? I propose thus to ask Xerxes again, to put the full light on this issue, and dissipate any unfounded doubts raised by defendant's council.

2) The summoned witness is testifying in this evidence about his own words, not about a statement made by another person.

3) This evidence have been provided by the witness himself.

Improper evidences:
These logs have been properly asked through a warrant procedure accepted by presiding judge nnmc, and obtained by staff and sergeant Tair0. Staff can testify the authenticity of these logs.

Thank you for your attention.

 

[xerxesmc]

I’m not sure if I am supposed to reply to this so forgive me if I am not, but I wanted to reply to this question for the record.

Oli was aware of DEC procedures to create a company as he has registered one prior and in the acceptance message it states you will be given permissions in game after your approval. This shows that he knows the process in which one must take to create a company in game and with the DEC. I cannot speak for Montilou but as they are working together I presume they know as well, though can only speak on the facts I know.

 

[Magills0819]

Objection: Breach of Procedure

The witness has responded, after being dismissed, without direction from the Judge.

I would also like to take this opportunity to remind the Court that the Plaintiff had their chance to ask further questions of xerxesmc or remind them of unanswered questions, but did not respond within the timeframe.

 

[nnmc]

Objection: Hearsay

This objection is overruled because xerxesmc has testified in this case as a witness regarding the statement at hand, so I do not believe that xerxesmc’s statement can fully be considered “out of court”

Objection: Improper Evidence

I will sustain this objection because I agree that a screenshot of logs would be better than text. @PiOs67 please edit the question to have a screenshot of logs instead of just text. This way, all parties are satisfied and the question will not be struck down.

Objection: Breach of Procedure

Sustained. I will not be offering a chance to rebut the objection, because it is highly beyond the norm for a witness to rebut an objection. The statement by xerxesmc will be struck from the record.

 

[nnmc]

@Olisaurus123 please answer the questions once Pios67 provides the necessary screenshots of the logs.

 

[PiOs67]

The necessary have been done to provide the logs to the court as soon as possible.

Thank you for your patience

 

[nnmc]

The necessary have been done

I’m sorry I don’t understand what you mean by this. All that is needed is for you to take a screenshot of staff/DOJ giving you the logs.

 

[PiOs67]

Your Honor,
My apologize, I did not understand this way. I did not personally asked for the logs, my client did. However, the staff confirmed the authenticity of these logs.
I hope this will be sufficient for the court.

Thank you.