Lawsuit: Adjourned Steveshat v. Vanguard [2024] FCR 62

Status
Not open for further replies.
Unseatedduke1

Unseatedduke1

Redmont School of Law
Supporter
Popular in the Polls
Unseatedduke1
Unseatedduke1
Solicitor
Joined
Jan 7, 2024
Messages
774
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION​


steveshat (Represented by Dragon Law)
Plaintiff

v.

Vanguard (Shareholder of 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. Vanguard (Shareholder 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deposited $969,009 into his Keystone Holdings gambling balance that could then be used to gamble, and could be withdrawn for cash at any time (Exhibit A).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.

6. Keystone Holdings subsequently dissolved to avoid liability and distributed assets to its former shareholders (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 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. 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.

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.

3. Keystone Holdings dissolved, leaving liability for its actions to its shareholders. The plaintiff will be using discovery to find out how much liability is attributed to each shareholder and how much money should be clawed back from each. For now, the prayer for relief comprises a total amount of money owed collectively by all of the shareholders.

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 Atreides, S-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. At the time of this posting, that total is 51 days = $153,000.

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. $50,000 in punitive damages for attempting to launder this money by dissolving and distributing it to shareholders / other parties.

6. $585,000 + 30% of the award of prayer for relief 3 in legal fees, awarded to Dragon Law Firm (a recent amendment to the Legal Damages Act increases legal fees to 30%).


V. EVIDENCE
724QzS33eE9VYvdiThm32lEmykf1aoU3QIRpTSs50N-wvWdPHLmRxMrEmMXzUJBk1cUI3F9QToFmEUWmmk5XqfMeoXiLZuUyMdM_R4IXgGvfzVOphYxRnx8A82ItwjQgIDPv0cJsUFVEgkeLK_BXjJQ
U51R7FmSSHLTRx0znOz7JyjEBJJ9Pp5ICXdDR4reh28lUHqu9hq0RAvcWShF_Zt-I50XbKsW8UxCDkyy3RCgcY1X07yv-xAd9Z_nfyJGCl-_wqpGKWggzgPkfXez_CPFc_dCWFFl3_irqWHOB1ztM5s
kJ7wOLjv10X6v_8VpvYaMT5c-ov_9bnrs24d2GHQGQk9KHlW-xnILCDuqgD_c-yZYEYhUqEH6GrerzwTCK48K9qO2O5H59k-01_u-MZfRlx_cHaeiOK8AAICzNr38HKoCXjEjE7OHOgXURCVQqUXKeU
uHIEB-bxTW50ZEluIOzqLbRb_2koHBg1RLb-5ShJyND4y78HZXIR-lJj7INs-y1Aoj98-PziHplmkSr4-x1q-41y2kGCZQu-rG2RjCp9mYXAVPNJKCyRjRsNrLNjvv6l8mKulGGl830jCqQSr7Av8FQ
0oDSC8jbOVzMYQOXVWr1_0smhI4xNaZ4EQ0tWyPp5vCzkMg9gOy4yth06AOiO-E54W8feL4bFzZY6vOt_MJvV85cay91WW4WvlbKamAGOF47flc4H1ablVgeLyv-Eb7Iy1ONNANye51TW9sNa-C39TQ
jUB6Ax4t38gKb7CEjkHqcA6VwFaOqxjXOCNYnT7TzyA_OXEvpKQlpljJmlfy_th9mCMvhk0-SvZHt-oLKbRaCTJxCHIa0b17zb9pVf5uRBhf5d5u83LP7lJUPhg_x3bRulE9jnWBa_q8LlZenA9VilQ


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 25th day of April 2024
 
FedCourtLogo.png


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

@georgelordx is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Steveshat v. Vanguard.

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECUSE

The plaintiff move that Judge RelaxedGV is removed from this case as granted by the court in the initial appeal request.

Thank you
 
I will grant the Motion to Recuse and Judge SumoMC will be Presiding when they are available.
 
With the recusal of Justice Relaxed I will be taking over, deadlines are still in effect.
 
Your honor, I am the defendant's lawyer. Requesting 24 hours extension to familiarize myself with the case, and get relevant proof and witnesses ready.
 
Bibsfi4a said:
Your honor, I am the defendant's lawyer. Requesting 24 hours extension to familiarize myself with the case, and get relevant proof and witnesses ready.
Click to expand...

Granted
 
Please provide proof of representation
 
@Bibsfi4a i need proof of representation within 12 hours or we will be moving on
 
SumoMC said:
@Bibsfi4a i need proof of representation within 12 hours or we will be moving on
Click to expand...
Your honor, I am assuming, the 24 hours begins now. Couldn't really move ahead, as I forgot the proof of representation.
 
Bibsfi4a said:
Your honor, I am assuming, the 24 hours begins now. Couldn't really move ahead, as I forgot the proof of representation.
Click to expand...
No the 24 hours began when you asked for it, deadline remains in effect.
 
They have missed the deadline.
 
Your honor,

The defendant once again missed their deadline.
 
@Bibsfi4a is hereby held in contempt of court again, this is the last 24 Hours I will give before we move to default.
 
Your honor these extended deadlines are unprecedented. The defendant has missed deadline after deadline. We motion to reconsider this extension and ask for a summary judgment
 
Unseatedduke1 said:
Your honor these extended deadlines are unprecedented. The defendant has missed deadline after deadline. We motion to reconsider this extension and ask for a summary judgment
Click to expand...
Motion to Reconsider is denied, this is a huge case and this court will act accordingly.
 
Your honor, as Chief Legal Officer of Discover / Vanguard Bank, we apologize for the delay. Counsel has been fired and me along with WhyDoesThisWork will be be taking over. We will issue a response to complaint as follows:

T (Yes this is intentional, before anyone calls me crazy there is logic to it that may be revealed later).


Now, we motion to dismiss. The case lacks a claim for the damages provided. It appears the plaintiff is putting 100% of the alleged liability for damages on the defendant when the defendant did not own 100% of Keystone Holdings. Under rule 5.5, damages must be backed with a claim and evidence and there is no evidence to support the amount of damages provided in this case. I urge the Court dismiss this case with prejudice for simply trying to milk my client out of absurd money over an issue my client has no involvement with and earned nothing out of. There are no claims nor evidence to suggest the defendant benefited off any "scam" if such claims are even true. Rule 5.5 is stringent as the Court has higher standards than frivolous cases with even more frivolous claims and prayers. Thank you.
 
The defendant's response is ludicrous, Your Honor. Permit me to address the motion and refute it.

  1. It is imperative to note that this case cannot be dismissed with a motion to dismiss, given its status as an appealed case.
  2. We have clearly articulated our intention to utilize the discovery process to determine the extent of liability for each shareholder and the appropriate restitution. Denial of this motion is requested.
Your Honor, we respectfully petition for the removal of Alexander Love from this case due to an unequivocal Conflict of Interest, a violation of the SMLBA. Mr. Love's prior ownership of Dragon Law, coupled with his involvement in initiating the dismissed original lawsuit, endows him with an intimate understanding of every facet of this case. There exists a palpable risk that he could exploit privileged attorney-client information to our detriment. Allowing him to continue as the opposing party's legal representative would not only contravene the law but also undermine the fairness of these proceedings.
 
Unseatedduke1 said:
The defendant's response is ludicrous, Your Honor. Permit me to address the motion and refute it.

  1. It is imperative to note that this case cannot be dismissed with a motion to dismiss, given its status as an appealed case.
  2. We have clearly articulated our intention to utilize the discovery process to determine the extent of liability for each shareholder and the appropriate restitution. Denial of this motion is requested.
Your Honor, we respectfully petition for the removal of Alexander Love from this case due to an unequivocal Conflict of Interest, a violation of the SMLBA. Mr. Love's prior ownership of Dragon Law, coupled with his involvement in initiating the dismissed original lawsuit, endows him with an intimate understanding of every facet of this case. There exists a palpable risk that he could exploit privileged attorney-client information to our detriment. Allowing him to continue as the opposing party's legal representative would not only contravene the law but also undermine the fairness of these proceedings.
Click to expand...
Objection your honor breach of procedure. A response was not warranted.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Your honor, as Chief Legal Officer of Discover / Vanguard Bank, we apologize for the delay. Counsel has been fired and me along with WhyDoesThisWork will be be taking over. We will issue a response to complaint as follows:

T (Yes this is intentional, before anyone calls me crazy there is logic to it that may be revealed later).


Now, we motion to dismiss. The case lacks a claim for the damages provided. It appears the plaintiff is putting 100% of the alleged liability for damages on the defendant when the defendant did not own 100% of Keystone Holdings. Under rule 5.5, damages must be backed with a claim and evidence and there is no evidence to support the amount of damages provided in this case. I urge the Court dismiss this case with prejudice for simply trying to milk my client out of absurd money over an issue my client has no involvement with and earned nothing out of. There are no claims nor evidence to suggest the defendant benefited off any "scam" if such claims are even true. Rule 5.5 is stringent as the Court has higher standards than frivolous cases with even more frivolous claims and prayers. Thank you.
Click to expand...
Motion to Dismiss is denied, the court accepted the appeal and will move forward with the case.
 
Defense has 24 hours to deliver their Answer to Complaint.
 
Unseatedduke1 said:
The defendant's response is ludicrous, Your Honor. Permit me to address the motion and refute it.

  1. It is imperative to note that this case cannot be dismissed with a motion to dismiss, given its status as an appealed case.
  2. We have clearly articulated our intention to utilize the discovery process to determine the extent of liability for each shareholder and the appropriate restitution. Denial of this motion is requested.
Your Honor, we respectfully petition for the removal of Alexander Love from this case due to an unequivocal Conflict of Interest, a violation of the SMLBA. Mr. Love's prior ownership of Dragon Law, coupled with his involvement in initiating the dismissed original lawsuit, endows him with an intimate understanding of every facet of this case. There exists a palpable risk that he could exploit privileged attorney-client information to our detriment. Allowing him to continue as the opposing party's legal representative would not only contravene the law but also undermine the fairness of these proceedings.
Click to expand...

Motion is denied, this is the defenses chosen council and in my opinion does not rise to the level of removal based on the SMLBA
 
SumoMC said:
Motion is denied, this is the defenses chosen council and in my opinion does not rise to the level of removal based on the SMLBA
Click to expand...
Your Honor, motion to reconsider,

The SMLBA states In the legal context, a conflict of interest is defined as the situation where the same legal counsel represents both the defense and the plaintiff simultaneously in the same case. Your honor, Mr. Love, wrote this entire case in the original complaint, which you can view here. Mr. Love worked with the plaintiff and was given privileged information about the case. He is now not representing him in the case and is representing the other side in the very same case Mr. Love appealed in the Supreme Court. See that here. This is the very foundation of a conflict of interest. Mr. Love represented the plaintiff in this case, lost, appealed the case, and now that it's refiled, Mr. Love is taking the other side?? This is beyond clear to be a COI, and this court should uphold not only the SMLBA that defines COI as an indictable criminal offense but also ethics. Of course, the defendant wants Mr. Love to represent them when he is the one who originally sued them in this SAME case.
 
Unseatedduke1 said:
Your Honor, motion to reconsider,

The SMLBA states In the legal context, a conflict of interest is defined as the situation where the same legal counsel represents both the defense and the plaintiff simultaneously in the same case. Your honor, Mr. Love, wrote this entire case in the original complaint, which you can view here. Mr. Love worked with the plaintiff and was given privileged information about the case. He is now not representing him in the case and is representing the other side in the very same case Mr. Love appealed in the Supreme Court. See that here. This is the very foundation of a conflict of interest. Mr. Love represented the plaintiff in this case, lost, appealed the case, and now that it's refiled, Mr. Love is taking the other side?? This is beyond clear to be a COI, and this court should uphold not only the SMLBA that defines COI as an indictable criminal offense but also ethics. Of course, the defendant wants Mr. Love to represent them when he is the one who originally sued them in this SAME case.
Click to expand...


Motion to Reconsider is DENIED, the law states that “(2) In the legal context, a conflict of interest is defined as the situation where the same legal counsel represents both the defense and the plaintiff simultaneously in the same case.” Mr. Love is not representing the Plaintiff and the defendant at the same time in the same case, he is only representing the defense.

All deadlines are still in effect.
 
SumoMC said:
Motion to Reconsider is DENIED, the law states that “(2) In the legal context, a conflict of interest is defined as the situation where the same legal counsel represents both the defense and the plaintiff simultaneously in the same case.” Mr. Love is not representing the Plaintiff and the defendant at the same time in the same case, he is only representing the defense.

All deadlines are still in effect.
Click to expand...
Your honor, the answer to complaint was already submitted. I motion to move to discovery.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Your honor, the answer to complaint was already submitted. I motion to move to discovery.
Click to expand...

A valid Answer to Complaint under Court Rule 3.2 has not been submitted, you have 12 Hours to submit a correct Answer to Complaint.

Rule 3.2 (Initial Answer Format Requirements)​

All answers, even Small Claims, must use the appropriate “Creating a Lawsuit” format and must have:
  1. An affirmation of what facts are affirmed, denied, or non contested.
  2. Either defenses under the law, defenses under facts, or a statement of defense that will develop throughout the course of discovery.
Click to expand...
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

steveshat
Plaintiff

v.

Vanguard Bank
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. Fact one is disputed by the defense.
2. Fact two is disputed by the defense.
3. Fact three is disputed by the defense.
4. Fact four is disputed by the defense.
5. Fact five is disputed by the defense.
6. Fact six is disputed by the defense.

II. DEFENSES
1. A thorough examination and refutation of facts will be performed over the duration of this case. Claims of law or fact may or may not be added to this complaint as evidence comes to light during discovery.


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 5th day of May 2024.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

steveshat
Plaintiff

v.

Vanguard Bank
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. Fact one is disputed by the defense.
2. Fact two is disputed by the defense.
3. Fact three is disputed by the defense.
4. Fact four is disputed by the defense.
5. Fact five is disputed by the defense.
6. Fact six is disputed by the defense.

II. DEFENSES
1. A thorough examination and refutation of facts will be performed over the duration of this case. Claims of law or fact may or may not be added to this complaint as evidence comes to light during discovery.


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 5th day of May 2024.
Click to expand...
Thank you, we will now move into a 7 day Discovery period.
 
Your honor, I object to exhibit A on the grounds of improper evidence as it is cropped. We can't see the context of that screenshot nor can we even see the Discord server it is in. The plaintiff should submit an uncropped screenshot.

Your honor, I object to exhibit B on the grounds of improper evidence as it is cropped. We can't see the context of that screenshot nor can we even see the Discord server it is in. The plaintiff should submit an uncropped screenshot.

Your honor, I object to exhibit C on the grounds of improper evidence as it is cropped. We can't see the context of that screenshot nor can we even see the Discord server it is in. The plaintiff should submit an uncropped screenshot.

Your honor, I object to exhibit D on the grounds of improper evidence as it is cropped. We can't see the context of that screenshot nor can we even see the Discord server it is in. The plaintiff should submit an uncropped screenshot.

Your honor, I object to exhibit E on the grounds of improper evidence as it is cropped. We can't see the context of that screenshot nor can we even see the Discord server it is in. The plaintiff should submit an uncropped screenshot.

Your honor, I object to exhibit F on the grounds of improper evidence as it is cropped. We can't see the context of that screenshot nor can we even see the Discord server it is in. The plaintiff should submit an uncropped screenshot.

Your honor, I object to exhibit F on the grounds of relevance. This screenshot shows shareholder information which is not relevant to this case as companies assume full liability for their actions, not shareholders. See below:
1714950487043.png
 
Your honor I motion to dismiss with prejudice under rule 5.5 lack of claim. The Commercial Standards Act absolves my client of any alleged liability incurred by Keystone Holdings, as Vanguard was not in a management position. See below:
1714950583461.png

Therefore there is no valid claim of wrongdoing by my client. Rule 5.6 does not apply because this case is NOT an appeal. This case is a remand back to the Federal Court. The APPEAL went to the Supreme Court, and the VERDICT of said appeal was to declare the first trial a mistrial, and to hold a new original trial. This trial is not an appellate trial and is a new instance. Furthermore, this case names a new defendant than the original appealed case. Therefore, this case is legally separate and different anyways.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Your honor, I object to exhibit A on the grounds of improper evidence as it is cropped. We can't see the context of that screenshot nor can we even see the Discord server it is in. The plaintiff should submit an uncropped screenshot.

Your honor, I object to exhibit B on the grounds of improper evidence as it is cropped. We can't see the context of that screenshot nor can we even see the Discord server it is in. The plaintiff should submit an uncropped screenshot.

Your honor, I object to exhibit C on the grounds of improper evidence as it is cropped. We can't see the context of that screenshot nor can we even see the Discord server it is in. The plaintiff should submit an uncropped screenshot.

Your honor, I object to exhibit D on the grounds of improper evidence as it is cropped. We can't see the context of that screenshot nor can we even see the Discord server it is in. The plaintiff should submit an uncropped screenshot.

Your honor, I object to exhibit E on the grounds of improper evidence as it is cropped. We can't see the context of that screenshot nor can we even see the Discord server it is in. The plaintiff should submit an uncropped screenshot.

Your honor, I object to exhibit F on the grounds of improper evidence as it is cropped. We can't see the context of that screenshot nor can we even see the Discord server it is in. The plaintiff should submit an uncropped screenshot.

Your honor, I object to exhibit F on the grounds of relevance. This screenshot shows shareholder information which is not relevant to this case as companies assume full liability for their actions, not shareholders. See below:
View attachment 43476
Click to expand...
Your Honor, It is established precedent that cropping screenshots does not diminish their evidential value. Such editing is often conducted for organizational purposes, as it is impractical to present an entire Discord conversation as evidence.

Regarding the objection to Exhibit F, its purpose is to illustrate the percentage of ownership held by each organization or individual. The law cited by the defendant pertains solely to passive shareholders without decision-making authority. Vanguard's decision to dissolve the company is evidenced by a conversation from the defendant's lawyer attached below therefore they made the management decision to fraudulently dissolve the company to avoid labiality.

1714952800383.png
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Your honor I motion to dismiss with prejudice under rule 5.5 lack of claim. The Commercial Standards Act absolves my client of any alleged liability incurred by Keystone Holdings, as Vanguard was not in a management position. See below:
View attachment 43477
Therefore there is no valid claim of wrongdoing by my client. Rule 5.6 does not apply because this case is NOT an appeal. This case is a remand back to the Federal Court. The APPEAL went to the Supreme Court, and the VERDICT of said appeal was to declare the first trial a mistrial, and to hold a new original trial. This trial is not an appellate trial and is a new instance. Furthermore, this case names a new defendant than the original appealed case. Therefore, this case is legally separate and different anyways.
Click to expand...
Your Honor, It has been firmly established that this case is indeed an appealed one, having been refiled with all defendants involved. The decision to refile with a single defendant was at your direction, Your Honor, due to the disparity in legal representation among the defendants.

The repeated invocation of a particular law by the defense is unfounded. The defendant in question made a managerial decision to commit fraud in an attempt to evade liability.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Your honor I motion to dismiss with prejudice under rule 5.5 lack of claim. The Commercial Standards Act absolves my client of any alleged liability incurred by Keystone Holdings, as Vanguard was not in a management position. See below:
View attachment 43477
Therefore there is no valid claim of wrongdoing by my client. Rule 5.6 does not apply because this case is NOT an appeal. This case is a remand back to the Federal Court. The APPEAL went to the Supreme Court, and the VERDICT of said appeal was to declare the first trial a mistrial, and to hold a new original trial. This trial is not an appellate trial and is a new instance. Furthermore, this case names a new defendant than the original appealed case. Therefore, this case is legally separate and different anyways.
Click to expand...

Motion to Dismiss is yet again denied, we will be moving forward with the case.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Your honor, I object to exhibit A on the grounds of improper evidence as it is cropped. We can't see the context of that screenshot nor can we even see the Discord server it is in. The plaintiff should submit an uncropped screenshot.

Your honor, I object to exhibit B on the grounds of improper evidence as it is cropped. We can't see the context of that screenshot nor can we even see the Discord server it is in. The plaintiff should submit an uncropped screenshot.

Your honor, I object to exhibit C on the grounds of improper evidence as it is cropped. We can't see the context of that screenshot nor can we even see the Discord server it is in. The plaintiff should submit an uncropped screenshot.

Your honor, I object to exhibit D on the grounds of improper evidence as it is cropped. We can't see the context of that screenshot nor can we even see the Discord server it is in. The plaintiff should submit an uncropped screenshot.

Your honor, I object to exhibit E on the grounds of improper evidence as it is cropped. We can't see the context of that screenshot nor can we even see the Discord server it is in. The plaintiff should submit an uncropped screenshot.

Your honor, I object to exhibit F on the grounds of improper evidence as it is cropped. We can't see the context of that screenshot nor can we even see the Discord server it is in. The plaintiff should submit an uncropped screenshot.

Your honor, I object to exhibit F on the grounds of relevance. This screenshot shows shareholder information which is not relevant to this case as companies assume full liability for their actions, not shareholders. See below:
View attachment 43476
Click to expand...
Objections Overruled
 
Motion to Dismiss

Your honor, I move to dismiss under rule 5.5, lack of claim as well as lack of standing. Vanguard Bank did not own shares in Keystone at the time of the alleged damages. The allegations are from February but the stocks were transferred March 7th. They were sold to Vanguard without disclosure of the incident, in an attempt to dump liability on my client falsely. The lawsuit should be against those who owned shares at the time of damages. See here they initially went to MSS from wetc’s account then to Vanguard. wetc is the one who assumes the burden of that share of the company.
image.png

image.png
 
Your honor I request a 24 hour extension I am traveling today and tomorrow.
 
Your Honor, I respectfully submit again that, according to court policy, a motion to dismiss cannot be entertained for a case that has been appealed. Regarding the particulars of the motion to dismiss, from the evidence presented by the Defendant they did not possess shares during the decision-making process leading to non-payment to the client. However, it remains pertinent that despite lacking ownership when that decision was made, the Defendant, in their capacity as an owner later on, participated in the decision to dissolve the company to evade liability. This decision constitutes managerial action and can be construed as fraudulent since, as an owner, they assented to dissolving the company to evade their obligation to compensate the client. The question of when the Defendant acquired ownership is not under contention; rather, the focus is on their managerial role in the decision-making process to dissolve the company and avoid liability.
 
Interrogatory:

1. What percentage of Keystone Holdings did Vanguard possess at the time of its dissolution?
 
Unseatedduke1 said:
a motion to dismiss cannot be entertained for a case that has been appealed
Click to expand...
Objection, your honor. Perjury.

This is not true. A motion to dismiss cannot be entertained on an appeal, which is subtly but dramatically different than what the plaintiff is claiming. This case is not an appeal. The appeal was a separate case.
 
Unseatedduke1 said:
participated in the decision to dissolve the company to evade liability
Click to expand...
Objection, your honor. Speculation and assumes facts not in evidence.
 
Unseatedduke1 said:
they assented to dissolving the company to evade their obligation to compensate the client
Click to expand...
Objection, your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence and speculation.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Motion to Dismiss

Your honor, I move to dismiss under rule 5.5, lack of claim as well as lack of standing. Vanguard Bank did not own shares in Keystone at the time of the alleged damages. The allegations are from February but the stocks were transferred March 7th. They were sold to Vanguard without disclosure of the incident, in an attempt to dump liability on my client falsely. The lawsuit should be against those who owned shares at the time of damages. See here they initially went to MSS from wetc’s account then to Vanguard. wetc is the one who assumes the burden of that share of the company.
View attachment 43562
View attachment 43563
Click to expand...


Motion to Dismiss is hereby denied and @Alexander P. Love is hereby charged with contempt of court for impeding court proceedings, the DHS is ordered to fine/jail accordingly.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Objection, your honor. Perjury.

This is not true. A motion to dismiss cannot be entertained on an appeal, which is subtly but dramatically different than what the plaintiff is claiming. This case is not an appeal. The appeal was a separate case.
Click to expand...
Overruled
 
SumoMC said:
Motion to Dismiss is hereby denied and @Alexander P. Love is hereby charged with contempt of court for impeding court proceedings, the DHS is ordered to fine/jail accordingly.
Click to expand...
Ok you know what, impeding court proceedings my ass. I motion to recuse. The presiding judge is the Chairman of a competing bank which constitutes a conflict of interest.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Ok you know what, impeding court proceedings my ass. I motion to recuse. The presiding judge is the Chairman of a competing bank which constitutes a conflict of interest.
Click to expand...
Motion to Recuse denied, the current judge is not a chairman of any bank, nor is that a factor in this case. Keep it civil in my court or you will be held in contempt again.
 
SumoMC said:
Motion to Recuse denied, the current judge is not a chairman of any bank, nor is that a factor in this case. Keep it civil in my court or you will be held in contempt again.
Click to expand...
Your signature says otherwise. I motion for another judge to review the motion to recuse.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Your signature says otherwise. I motion for another judge to review the motion to recuse.
Click to expand...

The signature is out of date, however I will grant your request for another judge to review the motion to recuse.
 
Unseatedduke1 said:
Tortfeasor
Click to expand...

Alexander P. Love said:
Ok you know what, impeding court proceedings my ass. I motion to recuse. The presiding judge is the Chairman of a competing bank which constitutes a conflict of interest.
Click to expand...
Upon further review, I have chosen to uphold Judge Sumo’s decision not to recuse in this matter. Judge Sumo has sworn under oath, and threat of perjury that he is no longer the chairman of any bank, the sole basis for the motion to recuse. I see no reason for the judge to recuse simply because they have not updated their forums signature recently.
 
MrFluffy2U94 said:
Upon further review, I have chosen to uphold Judge Sumo’s decision not to recuse in this matter. Judge Sumo has sworn under oath, and threat of perjury that he is no longer the chairman of any bank, the sole basis for the motion to recuse. I see no reason for the judge to recuse simply because they have not updated their forums signature recently.
Click to expand...
I would like to apologize to the Court for this confusion. I would like to also motion to reconsider the contempt charge as I am only making motions to dismiss as I see them come up. They all have merit despite not being accepted by the Court, so much merit that response was solicited from the defense. Therefore this isn’t obstruction. Furthermore we are in discovery, the appropriate time and place to make such motions as time is already allotted, no process was impeded by me making my meritous motions.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
I would like to apologize to the Court for this confusion. I would like to also motion to reconsider the contempt charge as I am only making motions to dismiss as I see them come up. They all have merit despite not being accepted by the Court, so much merit that response was solicited from the defense. Therefore this isn’t obstruction. Furthermore we are in discovery, the appropriate time and place to make such motions as time is already allotted, no process was impeded by me making my meritous motions.
Click to expand...

Motion to Reconsider is accepted however repeated use of the same motion to dismiss will result in a further contempt charge.
 
Unseatedduke1 said:
Interrogatory:

1. What percentage of Keystone Holdings did Vanguard possess at the time of its dissolution?
Click to expand...
@Alexander P. Love there is an outstanding question to be answered.

My apologies about the delay, discovery has ended the and the plaintiff has 72 Hours to give their Opening Statements.
 
Your honor, the deadline for an opening statement from the plaintiff has passed. I motion to move on to preserve my client's right to a speedy trial.
 
Your honor,

The plaintiff requests and extension to the deadline as my lawyer is currently busy with a program IRL.
We apologize for missing the deadline but kindly ask for this extension due to the nature of the situation.

Thank you
 
steveshat said:
Your honor,

The plaintiff requests and extension to the deadline as my lawyer is currently busy with a program IRL.
We apologize for missing the deadline but kindly ask for this extension due to the nature of the situation.

Thank you
Click to expand...
Objection your honor, breach of procedure. The plaintiff is speaking out of turn and may not request an extension after a deadline has passed. Furthermore, the plaintiff does not represent themselves and is therefore not permitted to speak unless called as a witness.
 
@Unseatedduke1 is hereby held in Contempt, the DHS is to fine/jail accordingly.

The defense has 72 Hours to submit their opening statement.
 
steveshat said:
Your honor,

The plaintiff requests and extension to the deadline as my lawyer is currently busy with a program IRL.
We apologize for missing the deadline but kindly ask for this extension due to the nature of the situation.

Thank you
Click to expand...

You will refrain from speaking in this court without being summoned to do so, should your lawyer need an extension that is their responsibility to request as they have done in other cases.

Further disruptions will be met with being held in contempt.
 
Your Honor, I would just like to notify the court that as I step down from Dragon Law, this case is now being handled by Avaneesh2008 from Dragon Law.
 
Your Honor,

The Defendant failed to file their Opening Statement
 
Apologies, we forgot to state no opening will be submitted by the defense for strategic reasons.
 
Thank you for your patience, @Avaneesh2008 will you still be calling Stoppers and steveshat as witnesses
 
We wish to only call Steveshat to the stand.
 
Avaneesh2008 said:
We wish to only call Steveshat to the stand.
Click to expand...
Objection, your honor. Breach of procedure. No witness list was provided in Discovery therefore no witnesses can be called.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Objection, your honor. Breach of procedure. No witness list was provided in Discovery therefore no witnesses can be called.
Click to expand...

Upon further review, the Court will be sustaining the objection, we will be moving onto Closing Statements. The Plaintiff has 72 Hours to submit theirs to the Court.
 
Your honor, I would like to notify the court that I will be taking over as counsel on this case.
 
Your honor, due to a new conflict of interest I will be recusing myself from this case. I ask the Court be reasonable in permitting the new defense counsel time to acclimate.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Your honor, due to a new conflict of interest I will be recusing myself from this case. I ask the Court be reasonable in permitting the new defense counsel time to acclimate.
Click to expand...
Deadlines are still in effect
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honor, may it please the court,

This case is straightforward. The defense claims there was a maximum bet and a cap on the bot. However, no evidence supports this claim. Exhibit E clearly shows there was no notification of a maximum bet, and the bot had no cap.

For a contract to be valid under the Contracts Act, it must meet the requirements of offer, acceptance, consideration, intent, and capacity. In this case, my client was not informed of any maximum bet, which means there was no acceptance of those terms, and thus no intent to enter into such a contract.

Let's review the facts:

  1. My client deposited $969,009 into his Keystone Holdings gambling account.
  2. There was no notice of a maximum bet, either on the notice board or on the bot.
  3. My client lawfully made a bet and won $1,800,000.
  4. Keystone Holdings refused to pay my client's winnings, citing a breach of an invalid contract.
These facts are clear and indisputable. Keystone Holdings' refusal to pay is based on a contract that is invalid due to lack of proper notification and acceptance of terms. The dissolution of Keystone Holdings further indicates an admission of wrongdoing.

My client, an honest participant, lawfully earned $1,800,000 and has been wrongfully denied this amount. This has caused him to lose potential interest earnings of 5%.

While opposing counsel might argue that under the Commercial Standards Act, shareholders are not responsible for the company's debts, I must remind the court that it has the power to interpret the law. Given that the company owes my client $1,800,000, and due to its dissolution, the shareholders must assume responsibility.

In conclusion, my client acted lawfully and deserves to receive his winnings. I respectfully urge the court to rule in favor of my client and order Keystone Holdings or its shareholders to pay the $1,800,000 owed as well as the interest lost, loss of enjoyment, and punitive damages for the horrendous actions taken by the defendant.

Thank you, Your Honor.
 
Your honor, I would like to notify the court that I will be taking over as lead counsel for the Defense.
 
WhyDoesThisWork said:
Your honor, I would like to notify the court that I will be taking over as lead counsel for the Defense.
Click to expand...

You have 72 Hours to deliver your closing statement
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your honor,

The Plaintiff has failed to prove without reasonable doubt that my client is even involved in the situation in question. As shown in a previous motion to dismiss within this case, my client had not purchased shares of Keystone Holdings until the 7th of March, 2024. The situation in question happened on the 15th of February, several weeks prior.

To add onto this, within the Commercial Standards Act we have:

19 - Additional Rights Granted to Companies
(1) All companies will be considered to be legal entities distinct from their shareholders, board members, or management.
(a) The shareholders of a public company, and the owners of a non-public company will not be liable for any damages incurred by the business decisions of the company they hold shares or ownership in. This provision will not apply to any shareholders or owners who assume management positions in the company.

It clearly states that board members and shareholders are legally distinct from the related company and without liability. Therefore, any claim of assuming the company’s liability simply due to being a shareholder is invalid.

To conclude, the consequences for everyone would be significant if shareholders were personally liable for a company's debts and obligations, especially if volume and date purchased are disregarded.
 
Court is hereby in recess pending verdict
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Steveshat v. Vanguard [2024] FCR 62

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. Steveshat won $1,800,000 from a game of Roulette in the Keystone Holdings Casino,
2. Keystone Holdings refused to pay the full 1.8 Million because they claimed the max bet was $5,000.
3. Keystone Holdings Liquidated and divvied out assets to the Shareholders.
4. Liability falls to the shareholders after they company dissolved.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The Defendant did not own shares of the company at the time of the incident.
2. As a shareholder, they did not hold a management position so they can not be held liable under the Commercial Standers Act.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. The Commercial Standards act says "
19 - Additional Rights Granted to Companies
(1) All companies will be considered to be legal entities distinct from their shareholders, board members, or management.
(a) The shareholders of a public company, and the owners of a non-public company will not be liable for any damages incurred by the business decisions of the company they hold shares or ownership in. This provision will not apply to any shareholders or owners who assume management positions in the company." This outlines that Shareholders of a public company do not liable for any damages incurred by the business decisions of the company, even if they hold shares in the company unless they assume management positions within the company.
2. Now we need to define what a management position is. Well now we need to turn to the Oxford Dictionary which says "Organization, supervision, or direction; the application of skill or care in the manipulation, use, treatment, or control (of a thing or person)" Now when it comes to vanguard they made a management decision, but don't hold a position that makes them constantly running or controlling a business. So we have now established that they do not hold a management position and can not be Liable.


IV. DECISION
1. The Federal Court hereby rules in favor of the Defense.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top