Lawsuit: In Session Admin23 v. The Exchange [2022] SCR 17

Featured Businesses

Admin23

Citizen
Redmont Bar Association
Admin23
Admin23
attorney
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Admin23
Plaintiff

v.

The Exchange
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

First, the Exchange has blatantly disregarded the Corporate Law and Shareholder Protections Act while supposedly doing their utmost job to uphold it. The Exchange has forced its customers to use a Discord bot that does not allow for custom prices and makes its own price based on something that is most definitely not supply and demand. Second, the Exchange has committed fraud twice by stating that it is illegal to allow for supply and demand to dictate prices (supply being the seller and demand being the buyer) and harmed the Plaintiff, Admin23, by doing so. Third, the Exchange has added insult to injury, quite literally and insulted and belittled the Plaintiff while violating the law.

I. PARTIES
1. Admin23 - Plaintiff
2. Someone (username in DC Discord is Aezal) - Employee of the Defendant
3. Nacholebraa - Owner of, and responsible party for, the Defendant
4. The Exchange - Defendant

II. FACTS
1. On September 6th, a private trader, magsymags, DMed the Plaintiff, Admin23, about purchasing Onyx Industries stocks at a price that would be agreeable to the buyer and seller (the very definition of supply and demand). The Plaintiff, Admin23, responded that the price is $3,000 for the 8 stocks.

2. On the same day, the Plaintiff opened a ticket in the Exchange Discord showing the conversation between magsymags and the Plaintiff.

3. Aezal (Discord name being “Someone”) stated that the price (including commission) for the stocks would be $3,158.94 and had no problem with the transaction.

4. magsymags sent $3,000 to Nacholebraa the day prior, September 5th. This money was deposited into an account with the Exchange. An account with the Exchange has the sole purpose of processing transactions with the Exchange.

5. Aezal continually belittled, facepalmed, cussed at, and laughed at the Plaintiff for “legit just using [the bot] wrong” when the Plaintiff did not want to use the bot because it did not allow for supply and demand to dictate the price of stocks.

6. Aezal states that he will “just manually do it”, meaning he will just manually edit the numbers. This shows that it is a possibility to edit the numbers of stocks an individual owns without requiring the bot to do it, meaning what the Plaintiff wanted to do was entirely possible. This means that the Terms of Service was edited at this very moment because of an agreement between Aezal, magsymags, and the Plaintiff. magsymags upheld his end of the bargain by providing $3,000 to Nacholebraa the day prior. This amount was in magsymags’ Exchange account. An account with the Exchange has the sole purpose of having ready funds to process transactions. The Exchange refused to accept that this amount was usable and demanded another $3,000 to process the transaction. Demanding another $3,000 to process a transaction when $3,000 was already deposited into magsymags’ Exchange account is tantamount to theft. There was no reason to demand another $3,000 when that amount of money was already in his account. As the Defendant has stated in their motion to dismiss in the previous court case that:

“The Exchange (TE) is a privately owned and operated securities exchange. TE states within its terms and services (TOS) that services can be canceled at any time with or without notice.”

The Exchange is well within its rights to change the terms at any time and that is perfectly fine. However, what the Exchange cannot do is vary the Terms of Service via an agreement and then steal $3,000, and then vary the terms again to cover up stealing the $3,000 (by closing the ticket and cancelling the service agreed to by Aezal).

7. Aezal states:

“Custom prices where never (supposed to be) supported. Ya’ll cant just say ‘ok im gonna give u my shares at a discount.’ Aint how stocks work.”

The Plaintiff replies that they are his stocks that he can sell at his own price and there is nothing wrong with that and says: “If two people agree on a price, the transaction goes through.”

The Plaintiff’s position is proven correct with a quick reading of the the Corporate Law and Shareholder Protection Act 4(3). If a buyer and seller agree on a price, that is a price dictated by supply and demand and must be allowed. Any deviation from that is illegal.

8. Aezal then explains that it is illegal for the Exchange to sell stocks at a custom price by saying:

“It’s actually illegal for us to allow you to sell stocks at a custom price.”

This is an odd statement given the willingness of Aezal to do so in paragraph 6 above. This is a direct contradiction of a previous statement, so either Aezal was willing to violate the law very readily previously, or this statement is a lie, and would constitute fraud, as defined under the Crackdown on White-Collar Crime Act as:

”an intentional or reckless misrepresentation or omission of an important fact, especially a material one, to a victim who justifiably relies on that misrepresentation; and the victim party or entity suffered actual, quantifiable injury or damages as a result of the misrepresentation or omission.”

That quantifiable injury inflicted upon the Plaintiff being the lack of a sale of 8 Onyx Industries stocks for $3,000.

9. The Plaintiff pushes to get the manual transfer of stocks over to magsymags as Aezal previously explicitly stated that it was possible. Aezal then cusses at the Plaintiff and for no reason.

10. After the explanation of the situation by the Plaintiff to Nacholebraa, Aezal states that the total price of the 8 Onyx Industries stocks is $2,871.78 and that the commission is $287.17. That commission is 10% of the total sale price of stocks. $158.94 is most definitely not 10% of the stock price of $3,000. This shows a wild discrepancy and inconsistency between commission amounts. This 10% commission is confirmed in another conversation between Aladeen and Aezal. Aezal lied to the Plaintiff about the amount of commission that should be paid. The Plaintiff disagreed with the price of the stocks as that price ($2,871.78) was not agreed upon by magsymags and the Plaintiff.

11. Nacholebraa states:

“In accordance with the CLA The Exchange is able to support a customer made price for the stocks as it would be in violation of Federal Law and we do not do that sort of thing around here. … I attached the screenshot of the act of congress in specific that references our inability to make custom prices.”

It seems that the Exchange does indeed “do that sort of thing around here.”

Nacholebraa’s statement makes no sense as he says:

“The Exchange is able to support a customer made price for the stocks…” but then states that would violate federal law.

The law that “does not allow the Exchange to create a custom price” is the Corporate Law and Shareholder Protections Act. Specifically, Paragraph 4(3), which states:

“(3) Securities Exchanges will be prohibited from calculating the market prices of shares in Public Companies using any factors other than the market supply of and demand for said shares. They will be responsible for updating these prices without requiring further input from the companies of which the shares grant ownership in.
(a) Securities Exchanges must provide consistent updates to the market prices of company shares. Each company listed on an exchange must have its stock price updated at least once every 30 days.
(b) Legal entities holding more than 20% of the stock in any public company must report their holdings to the Department of Education and Commerce.”

Nowhere does it say that the Exchange cannot transfer stocks from one person to another with both party’s approval. It does not say that two individuals cannot create a price that is agreeable to both of them for a stock and then have the Exchange transfer it by showing consent from both parties. The law simply states that the Exchange may not create a price for a stock that is anything other than what is dictated by supply and demand. However this also has been violated. The Discord bot that the Exchange employs uses a price for stocks that is dictated by the Exchange, not the market. This is a violation of the Corporate Law and Shareholder Protections Act.

12. Nacholebraa states that it was the Plaintiff who was being disrespectful to Aezal when the Plaintiff was reacting to Aezal’s demeaning behavior. This was Nacholebraa’s basis to arbitrarily close down a ticket requesting a perfectly legal sale of stocks and forced the sale to be done through the bot which is not what either magsymags or the Plaintiff had wanted.

13. The Exchange uses a Discord bot that uses arbitrary prices for stocks and does not allow for deviation in the price to match what people are actually willing to buy or sell for. This means that the Exchange does not use supply and demand to determine the price of stocks. The Exchange dictates the price of stocks to people.

14. By closing the ticket and editing the Terms of Service again, the Exchange forced the Plaintiff and magsymags to use the Discord bot that forces arbitrary and illegal prices on customers.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Exchange has violated the law that they have stated on multiple occasions they are attempting to abide by — the Corporate Law and Shareholder Protections Act. The applicable part of this law being:

“Securities Exchanges will be prohibited from calculating the market prices of shares in Public Companies using any factors other than the market supply of and demand for said shares. They will be responsible for updating these prices without requiring further input from the companies of which the shares grant ownership in.”

The Exchange has refused to process the transaction between the Plaintiff and magsymags and forced both the Plaintiff and magsymags to use the Discord bot. This bot forces people to use an arbitrary price. This price is not variable. That means that people cannot buy and sell things at a price that the market deems fair. If a buyer (demand) and a seller (supply) agree on a price, that is what the market deems fair and that transaction must be processed as deemed by the law quoted above. The Exchange refused to do this.

2. The Exchange lying to the Plaintiff three times.

First was that it was illegal for the sale with custom prices to be facilitated.

Second was that the commission was $158.94 and not $300 (10% of $3,000), which was later changed to 10% (287.17) when the total price of stocks were lowered by Aezal from the agreed upon $3,000 down to $2871.76.

Third was the reiteration of the fact that the Exchange supposedly cannot facilitate the transfer of stocks at a custom price agreed to by two parties because it is illegal.

2. The forcing a transfer of stocks by the Exchange at a different price than was determined by supply and demand. It was already explicitly stated that the transfer was possible by Aezal before he deemed that it was illegal, when, in fact, it was and is most definitely not illegal.

3. The insults and belittlement by the Exchange.

4. The three previous claims caused the Plaintiff to lose out on a deal that was already agreed upon.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $30,000 in punitive damages from the Exchange (or Nacholebraa as he is the owner of the Exchange)
2. A public and sincere apology from the Exchange to all customers of the Exchange for breaking the law and damaging its customers.

Exhibit 1
1663861275245.jpeg

Exhibit 2
1663861286415.jpeg

Exhibit 3
1663861295931.jpeg

Exhibit 4
1663861306685.jpeg

Exhibit 5
1663861346288.jpeg

Exhibit 6
1663861374583.jpeg

Exhibit 7
1663861387062.jpeg

Exhibit 8
1663861397875.jpeg

Exhibit 9
1663862312645.jpeg

Exhibit 10
1663862340122.jpeg


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 22nd day of September 2022
 
Last edited:

Admin23

Citizen
Redmont Bar Association
Admin23
Admin23
attorney
There are more attachments than in just the original filing and they will be submitted in this post (and an additional one) as the original one has met the 10 image limit.


Exhibit 11
1663862842775.jpeg

Exhibit 12 (Red text is added by me to signify what the link is for)
1663862853629.jpeg

Exhibit 13
1663862862157.jpeg

Exhibit 14
1663862871332.jpeg

Exhibit 15 (a screenshot of the same law shown in Exhibit 14)
1663862881195.jpeg

Exhibit 16
1663862890020.jpeg

Exhibit 17
1663862900874.jpeg

Exhibit 18 (proof of the commission being 10%, weeks before the Plaintiff’s was opened)
1663862909139.jpeg

Exhibit 19
1663862920859.jpeg

Exhibit 20
1663862931431.jpeg
 
Last edited:

Admin23

Citizen
Redmont Bar Association
Admin23
Admin23
attorney
I accidentally submitted the incorrect draft. It seems my final draft was deleted. With the Court’s permission, I would like to take the time to edit the complaint before the deadline of 3:34 AM EST September 24th that Wuutie has given to file this complaint.
 
Last edited:

JoeGamer

Justice
Chief Justice
Justice
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
JoeGamer
JoeGamer
chiefjustice
1664078676412.png

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


The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of the Admin23 v. The Exchange. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour of the plaintiff.

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

JoeGamer

Justice
Chief Justice
Justice
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
JoeGamer
JoeGamer
chiefjustice
Mr. Admin23, for the sake of neatness in the Supreme Court, I request that you downsize your screenshots. They are absurdly large and unprofessional. This could be done with Imgur, Google Docs, or simply downsizing them in the original post.
 

Lord_Donuticus

Citizen
Redmont Bar Association
The_Donuticus
The_Donuticus
attorney
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS


Admin23
Plaintiff

v.

The Exchange (Represented by DouCo Law Partners)
Defendant

1664079181147.png
Screen Shot 2022-09-25 at 05.16.17.png

Your honor,

It brings me great joy to once again be practicing law in the great nation of Redmont, and I am grateful to my client for this opportunity. However I do wish it were under better circumstances, you see this case is nothing short of frivolous and frankly in my, humble, opinion not worthy of this court's valuable time and as such I will try to keep it as brief as I can.

My client is deeply upset that this charade by the Plaintiff is to be dragged out once more after the matter had been settled. The stress of having to respond to these events has been heavy on my client, who already has many responsibilities outside of running a business - including sitting on this Supreme Court. As such my client has come to me and my law firm seeking relief from this burden - relief that does come with a cost that the defense hopes the court will compel the Plaintiff to carry.

The defense could argue a Motion to Dismiss on a great number of points in the “argument” above, however instead the defense would like to save everyone’s time by instead submitting a Motion based on perjury committed by the Plaintiff. In the consideration of this attempt to wrap this up quickly the defense would like the opportunity to make a further Motion to Dismiss, which would address the whole body of text written by the Plaintiff, in the event that the Perjury committed by the Plaintiff is not considered enough to throw this case out.

MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. The Defense would like to focus on the argument in ‘FACTS. 6.’ Quote:

6. Aezal states that he will “just manually do it”, meaning he will just manually edit the numbers. This shows that it is a possibility to edit the numbers of stocks an individual owns without requiring the bot to do it, meaning what the Plaintiff wanted to do was entirely possible. This means that the Terms of Service was edited at this very moment because of an agreement between Aezal, magsymags, and the Plaintiff. magsymags upheld his end of the bargain by providing $3,000 to Nacholebraa the day prior. This amount was in magsymags’ Exchange account. An account with the Exchange has the sole purpose of having ready funds to process transactions. The Exchange refused to accept that this amount was usable and demanded another $3,000 to process the transaction. Demanding another $3,000 to process a transaction when $3,000 was already deposited into magsymags’ Exchange account is tantamount to theft. There was no reason to demand another $3,000 when that amount of money was already in his account. As the Defendant has stated in their motion to dismiss in the previous court case that:

“The Exchange (TE) is a privately owned and operated securities exchange. TE states within its terms and services (TOS) that services can be canceled at any time with or without notice.”

The Exchange is well within its rights to change the terms at any time and that is perfectly fine. However, what the Exchange cannot do is vary the Terms of Service via an agreement and then steal $3,000, and then vary the terms again to cover up stealing the $3,000 (by closing the ticket and cancelling the service agreed to by Aezal).

i) Your honor this is very simple, the Plaintiff has not read the Terms of Service but yet has decided to claim that it has been edited by my client regardless - talking about grasping at straws. In my first emboldened section you will see the Plaintiff claims that the Terms of Services were edited, now it is not clear to the Defense if the Plaintiff means it was physically edited or not however if the Plaintiff is claiming it was physically edited the Defense would argue that the Plaintiff has provided no evidence of these edits. Furthermore the Defense is able to provide evidence that it was not edited if the court will allow it. This flagrant lie is perjury your honor, there were no edits. And if there were no edits, you must discredit.

Screen Shot 2022-09-25 at 05.23.51.png

ii) In the event that the Plaintiff instead means that it was somehow metaphorically edited, this is also a lie as the Terms of Service - which the Plaintiff so helpfully provides- makes no mention of the specifics of the exchange of shares except for stating “We may remove or modify any service at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice”. The Plaintiff provides no evidence for these so called edits, just states they happened - that’s my perjury alarm sounding. Once more, if there were no edits, you must discredit.

iii) In my second emboldened section the Plaintiff claims my client requested another $3,000 from magsymags. Now I have read, reread, rereread and frankly rerereread the provided evidence by the Plaintiff. This did not happen. This is a lie. I may be wrong here but this did not happen, my client did not ask for another $3,000 from magsymags, my client did ask for proof of the initial $3,000 but this does not equal what the Plaintiff has claimed. The Plaintiff has lied, because it sounds better to claim another $3,000 was requested. And a lie is perjury your honor.

iv) In my final emboldened section the Plaintiff says that the Exchange can ‘change’ the terms at any time - but what they cannot do is ‘vary’ them. Your honor, this is a circus act. If you look up the word ‘vary’ in the dictionary you will see the word ‘change’ as a synonym, they mean the same thing! The Plaintiff is trying to bend, twist and break the English Language in order to fabricate an argument. To try and twist the truth in this way constitutes perjury in my books.

v) In one final act of perjury your honor the Plaintiff claims the Defendant ‘stole’ $3,000! ‘Stole’, my goodness, what explosive language. Your honor, it's as clear as day magsymags claims they mistakenly transferred $3,000 to my client, which my client asks for proof of. If that’s theft then we better go arrest all the buskers and beggars in the city who were given money by someone else! But why stop there? Grandma gave you $10 for mowing her lawn, well kid I’m afraid it's juvie for you, you stole that $10 from a sweet old lady. Your honor, this is ridiculous. Once more in this tiny snippet of the whole argument the Plaintiff is lying about the facts of the case to try and make something out of nothing. Making something up is lying, lying is perjury.

There was no theft, there were no requests for another $3,000, and there were no edits. And if there were no edits, you must discredit.

2. And so the defense argues that as the Plaintiff has shown such to flirt with fiction so freely on some of the key facts of their case, nothing within this case can be taken to be truthful. The core elements outlined in this Motion are lies and so this entire case is a waste of everyone's time.

3. The defense would ask to add an extra stipulation to this motion that the Plaintiff should compensate my client for the $15,000 they have had to spend on legal fees, plus an extra $5,000 for their time in collecting evidence. Seeing as the Plaintiff thinks that $30,000 is a fair damages to ask for events based on fiction, the defense imagines they will have no issue with this charge.

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 September 2022
 

Attachments

  • 1664079192137.png
    1664079192137.png
    19.3 KB · Views: 12

Admin23

Citizen
Redmont Bar Association
Admin23
Admin23
attorney
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
REBUTTAL TO MOTION TO DISMISS



Good afternoon, your Honor, opposing counsel.

Let’s look at what the opposing counsel has to say, paragraph by paragraph. However, before I get started, I would like to direct the Court’s attention to the fact that opposing counsel has decided to cherry pick a single part of the Plaintiff’s argument, and left a whole 13 other facts undisputed which means that the Defense has boxed itself into a fait accompli with nearly the entirety of the Plaintiff’s points.

I will give a response to each of the Defense’s points.


1(i)
“In my first emboldened section you will see the Plaintiff claims that the Terms of Services were edited, now it is not clear to the Defense if the Plaintiff means it was physically edited or not however if the Plaintiff is claiming it was physically edited the Defense would argue that the Plaintiff has provided no evidence of these edits. Furthermore the Defense is able to provide evidence that it was not edited if the court will allow it. This flagrant lie is perjury your honor, there were no edits. And if there were no edits, you must discredit.”

No, there was no edit of the TOS document, however as is stated in stated TOS document,

“We may remove or modify any service submitted at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice. Requests for service to be canceled or modified will be undertaken only at our discretion. We may terminate your access to all or any part of our services at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice.”

The service was modified, and thus the TOS was modified. The TOS is a foundational document in which the Exchange is able to expand upon without a direct edit of the TOS document itself.

“We may remove or modify any service submitted at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice.”

The above passage can include verbal agreements between staff and customers.


1(ii)
“In the event that the Plaintiff instead means that it was somehow metaphorically edited, this is also a lie as the Terms of Service makes no mention of the specifics of the exchange of shares except for stating ‘We may remove or modify any service at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice’. The Plaintiff provides no evidence for these so called edits, just states they happened…”

Yes, they did indeed just happened. If I can bring the Court’s attention to Exhibit 4, Aezal states, “you just need 3158.94 in your bal and we’ll sort it out from there”. That is an expansion of the Exchange’s services from solely the bot to a manual stock transfer by Aezal. That was an inclusion of the processing of the transaction into the services of the Exchange, and that means that that service then falls under a “service” within the TOS and thus, an edit occurred. An edit not in the physical sense but rather interpretation of the wording of it.


1(iii)
“In my second emboldened section the Plaintiff claims my client requested another $3,000 from magsymags. Now I have read, reread, rereread and frankly rerereread the provided evidence by the Plaintiff. This did not happen. This is a lie. I may be wrong here but this did not happen, my client did not ask for another $3,000 from magsymags, my client did ask for proof of the initial $3,000 but this does not equal what the Plaintiff has claimed. The Plaintiff has lied, because it sounds better to claim another $3,000 was requested. And a lie is perjury your honor.”

Exhibit 4 is where these additional funds were requested by Aezal. Exhibit 13 is the lack of acknowledgment of the fact that magsymags had $3,000 in his account. Furthermore, there wasn’t even an investigation into this claim made by magsymags that he had sent $3,000. This is either very poor accounting or a sleight of hand that Nacholebraa tried to pull.


1(iv)
“In my final emboldened section the Plaintiff says that the Exchange can ‘change’ the terms at any time - but what they cannot do is ‘vary’ them. Your honor, this is a circus act. If you look up the word ‘vary’ in the dictionary you will see the word ‘change’ as a synonym, they mean the same thing! The Plaintiff is trying to bend, twist and break the English Language in order to fabricate an argument. To try and twist the truth in this way constitutes perjury in my books.”

The two words, vary and change, were used interchangeably, as is appropriate. There is no argument of substance here as it is merely stating the obvious in that the Plaintiff used two words correctly.


1(v)
“In one final act of perjury your honor the Plaintiff claims the Defendant ‘stole’ $3,000! ‘Stole’, my goodness, what explosive language. Your honor, it's as clear as day magsymags claims they mistakenly transferred $3,000 to my client, which my client asks for proof of. If that’s theft then we better go arrest all the buskers and beggars in the city who were given money by someone else! But why stop there? Grandma gave you $10 for mowing her lawn, well kid I’m afraid it's juvie for you, you stole that $10 from a sweet old lady. Your honor, this is ridiculous. Once more in this tiny snippet of the whole argument the Plaintiff is lying about the facts of the case to try and make something out of nothing. Making something up is lying, lying is perjury.”

I’m not even sure exactly what to say here. First off, before I respond, I would just like to say that if opposing counsel is being paid an exorbitant amount of money to defend his client, he should find at least a decent analogy. A grandma paying a child $10 for mowing the lawn is not an adequate analogy to Nacholebraa being paid $3,000, and conveniently forgetting that he was paid that the day prior, and Aezal asking for the amount of money to be sent to Nacholebraa.

Magsymags did not mistakenly send $3,000 to Nacholebraa. He did so in a support ticket with the Exchange the day prior, on September 5th. That is not mistaken. That was deposited into magsymags’ Exchange account. The money in that account has the sole purpose of processing transactions, which both Aezal and Nacholebraa did not use. This is not a direct theft, but rather a theft of deceit. Magsymags did not know where his money had gone. He did not know it was in his account and was usable.

If you tell a toddler to put a dollar that they found in a jar and not tell them that they can get that money back whenever they want, they will think you just took their dollar, put it into the jar, and thus stole it.


2.
“And so the defense argues that as the Plaintiff has shown such to flirt with fiction so freely on some of the key facts of their case, nothing within this case can be taken to be truthful. The core elements outlined in this Motion are lies and so this entire case is a waste of everyone's time.”

The Defense may say that the Plaintiff is “shown to flirt with fiction” however let’s break this down one more time.

In the first paragraph that attempts to rebut one point in the complaint, opposing counsel is shown to not understand how the Defendant’s Terms of Service operates.

In the second paragraph, again, opposing counsel is shown to not understand the nuance of the Defendant’s TOS and how it operates.

In the third paragraph, opposing counsel seems to be incapable of reading a text conversation thoroughly. This is furthered by opposing counsel’s lack of thorough reading and understanding of the Defendant’s TOS.

In the fourth paragraph, opposing counsel excitedly jumps onto the Plaintiff’s use of synonyms in the proper way and says that the use of the English language in the correct way is a “circus act”. If that is the case, your Honor, I hope we are all clowns in that circus.

In the fifth paragraph, opposing counsel makes up this idea that Nacholebraa is somehow this child that mows the lawn of magsymags and the Plaintiff, and energetically insists that the logic tracks and makes sense. It does not.

All of this being the Defense’s response to one singular paragraph in the Plaintiff’s complaint. It didn’t even touch the 13 other facts posed by the Plaintiff. It seems that Nacholebraa is paying his attorney a lot of money for very little being done in the courtroom to further the Defense’s argument.


3.
“The defense would ask to add an extra stipulation to this motion that the Plaintiff should compensate my client for the $15,000 they have had to spend on legal fees, plus an extra $5,000 for their time in collecting evidence. Seeing as the Plaintiff thinks that $30,000 is a fair damages to ask for events based on fiction, the defense imagines they will have no issue with this charge.”

If the Defendant is willing to pay so many thousands of dollars for nothing being effectively disputed, that is on the Defendant to pay. Usually, an attorney is able to extract attorney’s fees from an opposing party if they win. So far, opposing counsel has done nothing to further his side to a victory. The cost incurred by opposing counsel should be kept with the Defendant.


Quite impressively, opposing counsel has found the most expensive, long winded way of saying nothing. Nothing has been disputed effectively. There have been multiple arguments of perjury thrown at the Plaintiff, however each and every one of those is due to opposing counsel’s lack of understanding of this case and is not due to any actual basis for perjury.


DATED: This 25th day of September, 2022.
 

Lord_Donuticus

Citizen
Redmont Bar Association
The_Donuticus
The_Donuticus
attorney
Objection,

Breach of procedure your honor. Admin23 was not invited to submit a rebuttal.

DATED: This 27th day of September, 2022.
 
Top