Lawsuit: Adjourned BubblyBo Vs. MysticPhunky [2023] FCR 111

[dodrio3]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

BubblyBo (dodrio3 Representing)
Plaintiff

vs.

MysticPhunky
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows: On the 23/12/2023, The Defendant entered a contract with the Plaintiff where they were set the role of selling properties. Three properties were bought by to Defendant using company funds- r-066, r-099, and r-075. The Defendant then quit and never transferred the properties back.

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

I. PARTIES
1. BubblyBo - Plaintiff
2. MysticPhunky - Defendant
3. Constellation Co. - Company

II. FACTS
1. The Defendant signed an employment contract with the company Constellation Co. on the 23/12/2023.
2. The Defendant bought properties of r-066, r-099, and r-075 with company funds to sell for the company
3. On the 24/12/2023, the Defendant quit their job at Constellation Co.
4. The Defendant never gave the residential plots back to Constellation Co. after leaving the position.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant bought properties on the Plaintiff to sell them on their behalf and then took them and left.
2. The Defendant tricked the Plaintiff into giving them properties and then left the next day.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. r-066, r-099, r-075 to be returned to BubblyBo.
2. $45,000 in punitive damages for the theft of the plots ($15,000 per plot).
3. $15,000 in loss of profits due to the plots not being able to be sold as soon as possible ($5,000 per property).
4. $10,000 in loss of enjoyment in Redmont due to being embezzled by the Defendant.
5. $14,000 in legal fees paid to dodrio3 (20% of the overall case value).

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

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 29 day of 12 2023

 

[dodrio3]

Emergency Injunction

To prevent the Defendant from transferring the properties to another individual or selling the properties, I ask that the court places the plots in the care of the Department of Construction and Transport for the duration of the trial.

 

[RelaxedGV]

The Emergency Injunction is hereby granted, plots r066, r099, and r075 are to be transferred from MysticPhunky to DCGovernment for the duration of this case.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Before I issue summons, can you provide proof of Representation?

 

[dodrio3]

This image shows the Plaintiff agreeing for me to post this into court

 

[dodrio3]

I also just received this message from the Plaintiff

 

[RelaxedGV]

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

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

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

 

[Alexander P. Love]

The Emergency Injunction is hereby granted, plots r066, r099, and r075 are to be transferred from MysticPhunky to DCGovernment for the duration of this case.

Motion to Reconsider
This injunction serves to harass and do irreparable harm to my client. My client is prevented from enjoying the use of his properties. I request this injunction be overturned and that the injunction is simply modified to prevent the sale of the properties; not preventing the ownership or use of them. The Court must be reasonable, your honor.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Do you have proof of Representation?

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Do you have proof of Representation?

 

[RelaxedGV]

Thank you, I hereby grant the Motion to Reconsider. After rethinking with the remarks made by the Defendant's Council, I agree that it would be more of a hassle to move the property over to the DCT just to move the property either to stay with the Defendant or move to the Plaintiff. Thus, the properties are only to not be sold off by MysticPhunky. Should they be evicted, then the properties are to be placed into a holding by the DCT temporarily for the remainder of the case.

The Defense has about 63 hours remaining.

 

[Admin23]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
BubblyBo
Plaintiff

vs.

MysticPhunky
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. The Defendant does not dispute this claim.
2. The Defendant disputes this claim.
3. The Defendant does not dispute this claim.
4. The Defendant disputes this claim.

II. DEFENSES

1. The Plaintiff has furnished no evidence that Constellation Co. funds were used in the purchase of r-066, r-099, and r-075. The Defendant asserts that their own funds were used to purchase these properties.
2. The Defendant does not need to give any properties to the Plaintiff as the properties were not the Plaintiff’s property to begin with.

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 31st day of December, 2023.

 

[MysticPhunky]

.

 

[dodrio3]

Objection
Breach of Procedure​

The defence failed to properly write the first section of their answer to complaint only stating that they do and don't dispute a claim but failing to say what claim it is.

 

[dodrio3]

OBJECTION
Perjury ​

As show in the picture that I have attached down bellow it does in fact show that the defence lied in their answer to complaint and that MysticPhunky did in fact purchase the property for the plaintiff. their for the properties were the plaintiffs property's.

 

[Admin23]

Response to Objection​

These screenshots that the Plaintiff has attached still do not show that, “The Defendant bought properties of r-066, r-099, and r-075 with company funds to sell for the company,” as claimed by the Plaintiff in paragraph 2 of Facts in the original filing.

There is still yet no evidence of company funds being given from Constellation Co. to the Defendant for the purchase of these properties. Furthermore, within one of the screenshots posted in the Plaintiff’s objection (attached below for convinence), it shows that the Defendant owned at least one of the properties before there was any agreement between the Defendant and the Plaintiff.

That directly contrasts with the Plaintiff’s claim that the Defendant bought these properties with company funds. Due to the fact that the Plaintiff had access to these chats, that means that the Plaintiff knowingly lied in the original filing when the Plaintiff claimed that company funds were used. That, my friends, is perjury.

 

[dodrio3]

Objection
Breach of procedure​

The prosecution responded to my objection without being prompted to make a response. The prosecution has therefore spoken out of turn and I motion to strike these remarks from the record.

 

[Admin23]

Objections Guide

 

[dodrio3]

Objection
Breach of procedure​

The prosecution posted images and text outside of being requested to thus I motion to strike this from the record.

 

[Admin23]

Response to Objection​

The screenshot I posted was of the Plaintiff’s own attachment in the first objection. No new evidence or information has been added with my attachment. Your Honor, it was attached for your convenience as to show which screenshot I was referring to so you did not waste time searching for it. Not to add anything new to the case.

 

[dodrio3]

Objection
Breach of procedure​

The prosecution responded to my objection without being prompted to make a response. The prosecution has therefore spoken out of turn and I motion to strike these remarks from the record.

 

[Admin23]

Response to Objection​

Your Honor, this is getting silly. I have already previously posted the grounds for a response without prompt by the presiding judge. Opposing counsel obviously has not read that response.

Opposing counsel is simply wasting the court’s time.

In addition to that, we have been called the “prosecution” at least four times when we are the Defendant’s side. It seems opposing counsel does not know that he is in a civil proceeding or that he is the initiating party.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Before I rule on any of these objections, I am disappointed in both parties by there constant objection and response before waiting for me to even rule on the first objection. Should the first be overruled then the rest would not be as required. With that, I will now respond to each objection.

Objection, Breach of Procedure is overruled you are typically objection to the Claims of Relief which thus you don't have to list out the Claim. It is just common practice and makes it easier when reading.

Objection, Perjury is hereby overruled there is clear contradiction between the objection and the evidence provided. We know at least one property was owned before being hired at Constellation which given the fact that the rest of the funds came from their own pocket with no evidence provided they were compensated, the properties would be the Defendants until transferred into another's name. No where in the contract does it state either that the properties are the Plaintiff's once bought by the Defense.

The rest of the Objections for Breach, are all overruled this isn't a breach of procedure. Plain and simple. The Presiding Officer does not have to state that they are allowed to respond and the opposing party can simply respond. The Presiding Officer will state that they have 24 hours however that starts once the objection is posted and can be extended should the Presiding Officer state 24 hours left within a new message.

In response to the posted images part, the Plaintiff themselves posted images within an objection that were not originally filed within the case. Thus contradicting oneself.

With that over, we will now move onto Discovery. This will last 7 days unless both sides agree to end it sooner.

 

[RelaxedGV]

After rereading the answer I would also like to ask the Defense if they have proof of Representation?

 

[Admin23]

We do, your Honor. It was posted before the answer.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Apologies, I did not know you were apart of Dragon Law Firm.

 

[Admin23]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH
MOTION TO DISMISS

1. Per Rule 5.12 (Lack of Personal Jurisdiction) of Court Rules and Procedures, the Plaintiff has not proven that they have been at all harmed by the Defendant and thus have no standing to file a case against the Defendant.
2. Per Rule 5.14 (Factual Error), the Plaintiff has made a factual error in their filing, claiming that all three of the mentioned properties were bought with Constellation Co. funds. It has been proven that that is not the case as one of the properties was purchased before there was any agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

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 1st day of January, 2024.

 

[RelaxedGV]

The Plaintiff has 72 hours to provide a response to the Motion.

 

[Admin23]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH
MOTION TO DISMISS

1. Per Rule 5.12 (Lack of Personal Jurisdiction) of Court Rules and Procedures, the Plaintiff has not proven that they have been at all harmed by the Defendant and thus have no standing to file a case against the Defendant.
2. Per Rule 5.14 (Factual Error), the Plaintiff has made a factual error in their filing, claiming that all three of the mentioned properties were bought with Constellation Co. funds. It has been proven that that is not the case as one of the properties was purchased before there was any agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

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 1st day of January, 2024.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH
Addendum to Motion to Dismiss

The Defense would like to request the Court to award the Defendant with the cost of legal fees in the amount of $5,000.

 

[RelaxedGV]

The Plaintiff may respond if they wish. They of course have 24 hours to do so.

 

[Bubblybo]

Your honour. Due to irl circumstances I need a 48 Hour Extension.

 

[RelaxedGV]

You may have a 48 hour extension to the Motion to Dismiss.

 

[RelaxedGV]

The Plaintiff may respond if they wish. They of course have 24 hours to do so.

I will not be ruling on this until I decide whether to grant the Dismissal or not. The ruling on this will be answered within the ruling.

 

[Admin23]

You may have a 48 hour extension to the Motion to Dismiss.

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor, the Plaintiff has hired an attorney to represent him. The Plaintiff does not need an extension due to their real life issues when they have legal counsel to appear in court on their behalf.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Can the Plaintiff confirm whether they currently have counsel?

 

[Bubblybo]

Currently my counsel has just gone back to school and lacks the time to respond. I’m actively seeking a nee lawyer but cannot, due to my unexpected irl situation.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Alright, then the Motion to Reconsider will be overruled however I will amend the time slightly. The Plaintiff has 48 hours from that message but if they cannot find counsel I will be dismissing this case given the magnitude of the case (how much is being asked for in damages)

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Your honor,

The plaintiff has agreed to terms with MrFluffy and Associates Law Firm and I will be taking over on this case.

As a side bar, the defendant would like to sincerely apologize for their previous counsels actions, and I can assure you this case will be run much more smoothly from this point onward.

I have attached proof of the agreement and will be responding to the motion to dismiss immediately.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH
MOTION TO DISMISS

1. Per Rule 5.12 (Lack of Personal Jurisdiction) of Court Rules and Procedures, the Plaintiff has not proven that they have been at all harmed by the Defendant and thus have no standing to file a case against the Defendant.
2. Per Rule 5.14 (Factual Error), the Plaintiff has made a factual error in their filing, claiming that all three of the mentioned properties were bought with Constellation Co. funds. It has been proven that that is not the case as one of the properties was purchased before there was any agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

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 1st day of January, 2024.

Your honor,

In response to this motion, we argue the following:

1. The defense has made an argument that the plaintiff has not proven that there has been harm by the defendant in this case, yet in the evidence provided by the plaintiffs previous counsel, there was a legally binding employment contract between the plaintiff and defendant. In this contract in section 8, it states “Upon signing the contract, Both MysticPhunky and BaroqueGem65762 may not leave for 2 months. If either does so anyways, they are required to pay a sum of $15,000 to Constellation Co. for lost profit.”

In the defense response to complaint, they affirmed items 1 and 3, in which the plaintiffs previous counsel clearly stated “The Defendant signed an employment contract with the company Constellation Co. on the 23/12/2023.” And “On the 24/12/2023, the Defendant quit their job at Constellation Co.” respectively.

Essentially, the defendants own counsel has already AFFIRMED that the defendant committed a breach of contract. In that same contract, breach of contract is addressed in section 10. This states “In the event of a breach of this contract, each Co (shorthand for Constellation) CEO, BaroqueGem65762 and MysticPhunky must pay a sum of 5,000 in addition to any other fines stipulated in this contract”.

Clearly based on the defendants counsels’ own affirmation of this breach of contract, the plaintiff has been harmed by the defendant.

2) The defense has claimed that the plaintiffs previous counsel has made a factual error in this regard, and the plaintiff somewhat affirms, but also disputes this point. In doing my due diligence before taking this case, the plaintiff stated the following :
(I apologize in advance for the language)

As we have already proven in point one, the defense has affirmed that a breach of contract did take place, and the contract does spell out those consequences clearly and the defendant should be held liable for those actions.

I would request that the court reject the motion to dismiss, based on the previous counsels affirmation of the damages and crimes and allow me to amend the prayers for relief to drop any prayers/claims relating to the properties that were aforementioned, and focus solely on the breach of contract, which was the plaintiffs original intent prior to the poor representation from the previous counsel.

The amended claims and prayers for relief would be as follows:

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant willfully entered into a legally binding contract on 23/12/2023 and broke that contract on 24/12/2023 meaning that the defendant is in violation of section 8 of the contract.

2. The Defendants breach of contract also puts them in violation of section 10 of the contract.

3. Due to the defendants actions, section 3 was also violated.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. The defendant pay the plaintiff $15,000 for lost profit that the plaintiff is entitled to in section 8.
2. The defendant pay the plaintiff $5,000 for breach of contract that the plaintiff is entitled to in section 10.
3. The defendant pay the plaintiff $3,000 for the breach of section 5.
4. 20% of the total judgment paid to the plaintiffs counsel (MrFluffy and Associates) due to the defendants breach of contract.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter your honor.

Signed this 5th day of January 2024.

 

[RelaxedGV]

The motion to dismiss is overruled although no proof has been provided that the properties were bought by with Constellation Co funds, with the Plaintiff deciding to drop that section of the Complaint then the remaining argument is no harm was done.

The argument that no harm was done can be removed by the fact that the contract states should the signatory leave the company within 2 months they are to pay $15k to the company. Given no evidence has been provided by the Defense showing this has been done there is definite harm that has been done.

In the terms of the legal fees for the Defense, I will be overruling it at this stage.

 

[RelaxedGV]

With that we will be moving onto Discovery, this will last a period of 7 days unless both sides agree to end Discovery early.

 

[Admin23]

Your Honor, the Defense would like to end Discovery early.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Would the Plaintiff also like to end Discovery Early?

 

[Admin23]

Your honor,

In response to this motion, we argue the following:

1. The defense has made an argument that the plaintiff has not proven that there has been harm by the defendant in this case, yet in the evidence provided by the plaintiffs previous counsel, there was a legally binding employment contract between the plaintiff and defendant. In this contract in section 8, it states “Upon signing the contract, Both MysticPhunky and BaroqueGem65762 may not leave for 2 months. If either does so anyways, they are required to pay a sum of $15,000 to Constellation Co. for lost profit.”

In the defense response to complaint, they affirmed items 1 and 3, in which the plaintiffs previous counsel clearly stated “The Defendant signed an employment contract with the company Constellation Co. on the 23/12/2023.” And “On the 24/12/2023, the Defendant quit their job at Constellation Co.” respectively.

Essentially, the defendants own counsel has already AFFIRMED that the defendant committed a breach of contract. In that same contract, breach of contract is addressed in section 10. This states “In the event of a breach of this contract, each Co (shorthand for Constellation) CEO, BaroqueGem65762 and MysticPhunky must pay a sum of 5,000 in addition to any other fines stipulated in this contract”.

Clearly based on the defendants counsels’ own affirmation of this breach of contract, the plaintiff has been harmed by the defendant.

2) The defense has claimed that the plaintiffs previous counsel has made a factual error in this regard, and the plaintiff somewhat affirms, but also disputes this point. In doing my due diligence before taking this case, the plaintiff stated the following :
(I apologize in advance for the language)
View attachment 40314

As we have already proven in point one, the defense has affirmed that a breach of contract did take place, and the contract does spell out those consequences clearly and the defendant should be held liable for those actions.

I would request that the court reject the motion to dismiss, based on the previous counsels affirmation of the damages and crimes and allow me to amend the prayers for relief to drop any prayers/claims relating to the properties that were aforementioned, and focus solely on the breach of contract, which was the plaintiffs original intent prior to the poor representation from the previous counsel.

The amended claims and prayers for relief would be as follows:

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant willfully entered into a legally binding contract on 23/12/2023 and broke that contract on 24/12/2023 meaning that the defendant is in violation of section 8 of the contract.

2. The Defendants breach of contract also puts them in violation of section 10 of the contract.

3. Due to the defendants actions, section 3 was also violated.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. The defendant pay the plaintiff $15,000 for lost profit that the plaintiff is entitled to in section 8.
2. The defendant pay the plaintiff $5,000 for breach of contract that the plaintiff is entitled to in section 10.
3. The defendant pay the plaintiff $3,000 for the breach of section 5.
4. 20% of the total judgment paid to the plaintiffs counsel (MrFluffy and Associates) due to the defendants breach of contract.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter your honor.

Signed this 5th day of January 2024.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH
MOTION TO DISMISS

1. Per Rule 5.9 (Collateral Estoppel), this case should not be heard as it has already been ruled in The Lovely Law Firm v. babysoga [2023] FCR 87, any clause in a contract that… “stifles economic mobility and, essentially, requires someone who accepted the contract to continue working even if they do not wish to (involuntarily).” is not legal.

The ruling goes on to state: “Thus, the Federal Court declares that the provision of the non-compete clause saying that the Offeree cannot be employed by a competitor for two weeks thereafter, does not meet the standard of ‘Legality,’”

In that case, the non-compete clause did indeed stifle economic mobility and required someone to work involuntarily. This contract before us does the same and is thus illegal and not legally binding.

FCR 87 has already heard on the legality of contracts that limit an individual’s employment options, and thus the Defense moves that this case be dismissed.


DATED: This 5th day of January, 2023.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Would the Plaintiff also like to end Discovery Early?

We do NOT want to end discovery your honor. We would like to continue, as we are still gathering evidence and putting together our witness list.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH
MOTION TO DISMISS

1. Per Rule 5.9 (Collateral Estoppel), this case should not be heard as it has already been ruled in The Lovely Law Firm v. babysoga [2023] FCR 87, any clause in a contract that… “stifles economic mobility and, essentially, requires someone who accepted the contract to continue working even if they do not wish to (involuntarily).” is not legal.

The ruling goes on to state: “Thus, the Federal Court declares that the provision of the non-compete clause saying that the Offeree cannot be employed by a competitor for two weeks thereafter, does not meet the standard of ‘Legality,’”

In that case, the non-compete clause did indeed stifle economic mobility and required someone to work involuntarily. This contract before us does the same and is thus illegal and not legally binding.

FCR 87 has already heard on the legality of contracts that limit an individual’s employment options, and thus the Defense moves that this case be dismissed.


DATED: This 5th day of January, 2023.

Your honor,

In response to the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff asserts:

1. If we do a thorough analysis of the 2 separate cases, there are some distinct differences that makes this precedence not apply to the case at hand.

For one, in FCR87, the employment contract was a standard one, in which the employee was agreeing to work for the company while being paid a flat fee. In the case noted, that was a weekly salary of $1,000. This was in exchange for their services and performing the job duties that were prescribed. This case had a non-compete clause which nullified the contract, EXCEPT that there was a nullification clause.

In our case however, there is no such non-complete clause. In our case, the contract was simple. Instead of paying the employee with money, the plaintiff was paying the defendant with a 22.5% share of ownership, as well as a generous 75% share of profits on any sales that they can make.

This section 8 is incorrectly identified as a non-compete clause by the defense. This section 8 is actually seeking to do the exact opposite of what the defense is claiming. Instead of mandating that the defendant has to suffer 2 months of servitude upon signing this contract, this clause provides them with another option, to simply buy out the remainder of the contract IF they wish to no longer work at the company. Essentially, the contract serves to offer the defendant 22.5% ownership in the company along with a 75% commission, in exchange for 2 months of employment, with the option that if they wish to no longer be employed by the company, that they can simply pay a fair market price (in this case $15,000) for those shares. This can be exemplified by the fact that neither the breach of contract clause, nor the prayers for relief listed are requesting the ownership shares to be returned.

Additionally, the judge in that case ruled that what made the non-compete clause illegal was that it mandated where the employee was able to work after they quit the company. As you will see, this contract has no such clause and therefore does not prohibit the defendants economic mobility.

Furthermore, hypothetically, even if the courts somehow were to conclude that this generous clause that the plaintiff offers to protect his employees economic mobility were to be illegal, this case has a clause in it similar to the “modification and severability clause” provided in FCR87 in section 9 titled “no loopholes” that although clumsily worded, would serve the same intent as the clause included in the case provided as “precedent” to close any loopholes such as this one.

Thank you for your consideration your honor.

 

[Admin23]

OBJECTION
BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Opposing counsel was not prompted to respond. Unlike objections, motions do not allow the opposing party to respond without being asked to by the presiding judge.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

OBJECTION
BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Opposing counsel was not prompted to respond. Unlike objections, motions do not allow the opposing party to respond without being asked to by the presiding judge.

Response to Objection:

Your honor,

I believe every motion to dismiss in the history of this Federal Court has been given an opportunity for the opposing party to respond, I was merely responding while I was available in an effort to provide both parties with a fair and speedy trial.

If desired by the court we can draw out this motion, and I resubmit my response after it is officially requested, or we can move forward towards a verdict to this motion and continue progressing in this case.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Before I rule on the Motion to Dismiss, I am hereby ordering the Plaintiff to provide a complete screenshot of the entire contract. Given this is now arguing on the terms of the contract, a full contract submitted into evidence would be better than multiple clauses within the contract missing. They have 48 hours to do so.

 

[RelaxedGV]

​

OBJECTION

BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Opposing counsel was not prompted to respond. Unlike objections, motions do not allow the opposing party to respond without being asked to by the presiding judge.​

As to not keep the case hold up, I will be overruling the objection given if I were to grant it then put a deadline the same response would be put wasting everyone's time and resources just for what boils down to a copy paste. I know neither side would like to waste anyone's time thus we will be moving on.

From here on however, I do ask that both sides wait for me to put a deadline before responding to Motions. Objections are free game within 24 hours however Motions are not. ​

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Before I rule on the Motion to Dismiss, I am hereby ordering the Plaintiff to provide a complete screenshot of the entire contract. Given this is now arguing on the terms of the contract, a full contract submitted into evidence would be better than multiple clauses within the contract missing. They have 48 hours to do so.

Your honor,

Currently there are issues with uploading files to forums. I will add the missing screenshot from the previous counsel as soon as this issue is resolved.

In the meantime, it appears that the only missing sections are sections 5, 6 and 7.

For the sake of continuing this trial I will transcribe these sections under the penalty of perjury if I am lying, and send both yourself and the defense a screenshot of the entire contract via discord to verify. It states as follows:

Section 5: Missed Quota Compensation

In the event that Constellation Realty Co. misses the bi-weekly quota once, the company must pay Constellation Co. a compensation sum of 3000.

Section 6 : Governing Law

This contract shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction in which Constellation Co. is registered.

Section 7 : Confidentiality

All parties agree to maintain the confidentiality of any proprietary information and trade secretes belonging to Constellation Co.

The entirety of sections 1-4 and 8-10 along with the accompanying agreements by both parties were included in the complaint.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Thank you, I will post my ruling on the Motion soon.

 

[RelaxedGV]

The Motion to Dismiss will be overruled as given there is no clause discussing the topic of non compete nor is there a section stating you cannot work for another employer for x amount of time after you resign or are fired. The Precedent provided specifically states you cannot force someone to not get hired at another entity for x time after their employment at your company. Given this the Precedent does not apply and is thrown out of this case.

Nowhere within the contract does it state either that you must continue working even if you wish to resign and instead the contract within this case states that if you wish to resign before working at the company for 3 months then you can pay $15k for lost profits (all taken from the evidence provided by the Plaintiff).

We will then continue with Discovery. We have about 5 days left before it ends.

 

[Admin23]

The Motion to Dismiss will be overruled as given there is no clause discussing the topic of non compete nor is there a section stating you cannot work for another employer for x amount of time after you resign or are fired. The Precedent provided specifically states you cannot force someone to not get hired at another entity for x time after their employment at your company. Given this the Precedent does not apply and is thrown out of this case.

Nowhere within the contract does it state either that you must continue working even if you wish to resign and instead the contract within this case states that if you wish to resign before working at the company for 3 months then you can pay $15k for lost profits (all taken from the evidence provided by the Plaintiff).

We will then continue with Discovery. We have about 5 days left before it ends.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor, the in response to:

“Nowhere within the contract does it state either that you must continue working even if you wish to resign and instead the contract within this case states that if you wish to resign before working at the company for 3 months then you can pay $15k for lost profits (all taken from the evidence provided by the Plaintiff).”

The requirement to pay $15,000 if my client desires to leave their position is coercive by nature and forces my client to continue working for Constellation Co. against his wishes, which meets the standard of involuntary servitude:

That the contract, “stifles economic mobility and, essentially, requires someone who accepted the contract to continue working even if they do not wish to (involuntarily).”


DATED: This 7th day of January, 2024

 

[RelaxedGV]

Motion to Reconsider will be overruled as again, there is a way to not only leave the contract, resign from the position, and there isn't anywhere stating they are unable to work for x duration of time after leaving the position. The $15k in question can be seen as a way to coerce them to stay however they can still resign via paying $15k within the 3 month duration.

Involuntarily by definition is "without exercise or co-operation of the will." in this case the Defendant can use Clause 8 to resign from the position before 3 months is over. This provides and avenue which allows the Defendant to exercise a right within the Contract thus nullifying the without exercise half of the Definition. Co-operation of the will is also able to be dismissed in this manner via the same avenue.

To put this simply, unless it can be proven that the Plaintiff did force the Defendant to work and not resign via Clause 8 the Motion to Dismiss cannot be granted under this argument.

 

[Admin23]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
INTERROGATORY

BubblyBo
Plaintiff

vs.

MysticPhunky
Defendant

QUESTIONS FOR THE PLAINTIFF
1. Has Constellation Realty Co. sold one (1) plot of real estate since the 24th of December, 2023?

The Defense maintains the right to ask up to four more questions of the prosecution via interrogatory at a later date.

 

[Admin23]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBPOENA

BubblyBo
Plaintiff

vs.

MysticPhunky
Defendant

DOCUMENT TO BE PRODUCED
1. The full edit record of the employment contract signed on the 23rd of December 2023.


The Defense maintains the right to subpoena more documents and/or information at a later date.

 

[RelaxedGV]

The Plaintiff has 48 hours to answer the questions and fulfill the Subpoena.

 

[Admin23]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBPOENA

BubblyBo
Plaintiff

vs.

MysticPhunky
Defendant

DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED
2. Plot sale history for BubblyBo, the owner of Constellation Realty Co. and BaroqueGem65762, employee of Constellation Realty Co., between the dates of December 23rd 2023 and January 6th 2024.


The Defense maintains the right to subpoena more documents and/or information at a later date.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBPOENA

BubblyBo
Plaintiff

vs.

MysticPhunky
Defendant

DOCUMENT TO BE PRODUCED
1. The full edit record of the employment contract signed on the 23rd of December 2023.


The Defense maintains the right to subpoena more documents and/or information at a later date.

Your honor,

I have combed through discord support, audit logs, and opened a staff ticket (ticket 11683) and this does not appear to be a feature that discord offers. If somebody knows something that I don’t, my client would be happy to provide admin access to anyone who can procure the requested document.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
INTERROGATORY

BubblyBo
Plaintiff

vs.

MysticPhunky
Defendant

QUESTIONS FOR THE PLAINTIFF
1. Has Constellation Realty Co. sold one (1) plot of real estate since the 24th of December, 2023?

The Defense maintains the right to ask up to four more questions of the prosecution via interrogatory at a later date.

In response,

My client affirms that no plots have been sold. In fact, the business has been crippled due to the defendants’ actions in the server as seen by the audit logs that I have attached in which they deleted messages, deleted channels and deleted various threads.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Your honor,

On behalf of the plaintiff I would like to bring the attached evidence to the record.

This will be all of the evidence provided by the plaintiff and we have no witnesses that we would like to call. We waive our remaining time for discovery.

 

[Admin23]

In response,

My client affirms that no plots have been sold. In fact, the business has been crippled due to the defendants’ actions in the server as seen by the audit logs that I have attached in which they deleted messages, deleted channels and deleted various threads.

MOTION TO STRIKE

Your Honor, everything opposing counsel posted after the first sentence is immaterial as it has no essential or important relationship to the claims for relief. Additionally, it is impertinent as it consists of statements that do not pertain, and are not necessary, to answer the question.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Your honor,

I have combed through discord support, audit logs, and opened a staff ticket (ticket 11683) and this does not appear to be a feature that discord offers. If somebody knows something that I don’t, my client would be happy to provide admin access to anyone who can procure the requested document.

Very well, the Subpoena will be seen as fulfilled unless a way can be found to truly fulfill it.

MOTION TO STRIKE

Your Honor, everything opposing counsel posted after the first sentence is immaterial as it has no essential or important relationship to the claims for relief. Additionally, it is impertinent as it consists of statements that do not pertain, and are not necessary, to answer the question.

The Plaintiff has 24 hours to provide a response to the Motion to Strike.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Your honor,

On behalf of the plaintiff I would like to bring the attached evidence to the record.

This will be all of the evidence provided by the plaintiff and we have no witnesses that we would like to call. We waive our remaining time for discovery.

Would the Defense also like to end Discovery early? (Forgot to add this into the post above)

 

[Admin23]

The Defense would like to end Discovery early, your Honor.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Alright, with that we will now move onto Opening Statements, the Plaintiff has 72 hours to provide theirs.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Your honor,

Currently there are issues with uploading files to forums. I will add the missing screenshot from the previous counsel as soon as this issue is resolved.

Also, now that the bug is fixed.

Very well, the Subpoena will be seen as fulfilled unless a way can be found to truly fulfill it.


The Plaintiff has 24 hours to provide a response to the Motion to Strike.

In response to the motion:

Your honor,

One of my clients claims for relief is the fact that they have a clause in their contract for penalties if Constellation Realty Co. does not make any sales.

My response to the subpoena provides additional insight as to why no properties were sold since the defendants departure. This additional
Evidence serves to show that my client is not simply abstaining from selling property just to further punish the defendant, but that the defendants actions in fact are what led to the subsequent lack of sales, through the intentional damage done to the discord server on their way out the door.

Thank you for your consideration.

 

[Admin23]

Your Honor, just to clarify, it was not the response to the subpoena. It was the answer to the interrogatory question.

 

[RelaxedGV]

MOTION TO STRIKE

Your Honor, everything opposing counsel posted after the first sentence is immaterial as it has no essential or important relationship to the claims for relief. Additionally, it is impertinent as it consists of statements that do not pertain, and are not necessary, to answer the question.

The Motion to Strike will be sustained and the latter part will be stricken from the record. This is because although yes the latter part is important to this case it is not important to answering the question and will be stricken. The argument may continue via Opening and Closing statements or other however in the answer it is not needed.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your honor,

The case presented before you is one that is quite simple. The defendant entered into a legally binding employment contract with well written stipulations for breaching the aforementioned contract. The defendant decided the next day that they wanted to leave their employment with my client. These facts are not in dispute, as the defendants own counsel has affirmed facts 1 and 3. This case is simple, the agreement meets all the requirements of a legally binding contract as laid out in the the Foundations of Contract Law Act, which are Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, Capacity, Legality, Legal intent and Format.

The consequences are clear in the terms of the contract. There is a $15,000 loss of profit clause due to my client based on section 8, a $5,000 breach of contract clause due to section 10, and $3,000 due to no properties being sold as stated in section 5. In addition, the courts recognize the ability to recoup 20% of the total cases value for court fees.

My client is simply asking for what he is legally due, as stated in the contract to which the defendant agreed to terms.

Thank you for your time.

Signed on this 12th day of January 2024.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Thank you, the Defense now has 72 hours to provide an Opening Statement.

 

[Admin23]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

This document is illegal or null and void in numerous ways.

First, this document is not what my client signed. The contract has been edited, as seen in the first attachment in the Complaint. The Plaintiff has edited it after my client’s signature, and thus is not a legally binding contract.

Even if we say that this document is what my client signed (which is untrue), let’s look at all of the issues with it.

1. First up, where is the consideration in this employment contract?

According to the CLF: “Consideration is the price to be paid under a contract. It is what distinguishes a contract from a. Promise. All contracts require former of consideration.” (Errors are not mine and are written into the law.)

What is the consideration that either party gave?

Let’s look at the Plaintiff. He “granted” a 22.5% “share” in Constellation Realty Co. However, that “share” may be taken at any time. That means that this is not consideration as it does not constitute something being paid to the other party as it was “granted” and not “given,” “gifted,” or “paid,” to my client. Something that can be taken at any time by someone else is not owned by you. This means that that “share” in Constellation Realty Co. is owned by BubblyBo (Constellation Co.).

Additionally, that allows a loophole that the Plaintiff can exploit for his own gain. See point 3 for the explanation.

Next, let’s look at the Defendant’s consideration. Their labor. They will work for Constellation Realty Co.

So, the Plaintiff’s “consideration” is that my client is granted fake consideration that can be taken from him. And then my client works for the Plaintiff. For free. Nowhere does it state that my client is paid anything. There is no consideration, which means there is no contract.


2. Next, let’s look at Section 10 of this document. It states:
“In event of a breach of this Contract, each Co CEO, BaroqueGem65762 and MysticPhunky, must pay a sum of 5,000 in addition to any other fines stipulated in this Contract.”

This states that in the case of ANY breach of this contract, no matter who is at fault for such breach of this contract, only one party must pay the fine. That party is the Co-CEOs, which includes my client, the Defendant. Even if the Plaintiff violates the contract, my client must pay a sum of 5,000.

This clearly violates the Foundations of Contract Law Amendment Act, which in paragraph 4 (Unfair Terms) states:

“There shall exist a legal test to determine unfair terms in standard form contracts.

• Does the term cause a significant imbalance between the contractee's rights and obligations and those of the contractor?
• Is the term reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the contractor?
• Would the term cause the contractee detriment (financial or non-financial) if the contractor tried to enforce it?
• How transparent is the term?”

If you look at the first bullet point, this contract violates the law quite clearly. No matter who is at fault in the breach of this contract, it is each Co CEO who must pay a sum of 5,000. That includes BaroqueGem65762. If a fine is being demanded from my client, it must also be demanded of BaroqueGem65763. If that does not constitute an imbalance between the rights and obligations between the contractee and the contractor, I do not know what does.


3. How do I know these loopholes I’ve mentioned can be used for the Plaintiff’s own gain? He wrote the contract. A loophole cannot be “created” by someone who did not write the contract.
In Section 9, it states:

“All parties acknowledge that this Contract is comprehensive and designed to prevent the creation of loopholes. Any attempt to exploit, circumvent, or create loopholes in the terms and conditions shall be considered a breach of contract.”

The Plaintiff created a loophole as stated above, and is now attempting to exploit it by including “2. The defendant pay the plaintiff $5,000 for breach of contract that the plaintiff is entitled to in section 10.” In the prayers for relief.

This by itself puts the Plaintiff in breach of contract for creating a loophole and then exploiting it. Those are two ways in which the Plaintiff is in breach of contract right now. However, all circumstances in which a breach of contract occurs (including this one) — you guessed it! The Defendant has to pay a sum of 5,000 to the Plaintiff. This leads me to my next point.


4. According to precedent set by 2022 FCR 52, any sum that must be paid or awarded to a party that is not specified as to what that sum consists of is to be interpreted as blocks of air. As such, the sums described in Section 4 (Termination and Compensation), Section 5 (Missed Quota Compensation), and Section 10 (Breach Penalty) are to be construed to be sums of blocks of air.

5. Section 3, 4, and 5 have no place whatsoever in an employment contract.
In Section 3, it states that Constellation Realty Co. (Owned by BubblyBo) commits to selling 1 plot of land biweekly. It further states Constellation Co. (Owned by BubblyBo) will take a 25% cut. This is a promise from BubblyBo to BubblyBo.

This has nothing to do with the Employees, BaroqueGem65762 or MysticPhunky.

In Section 4, it states that if the aforementioned biweekly quota is not met (a promised quota made by BubblyBo to himself), BaroqueGem65762 and MysticPhunky must each pay a sum of 10,000 blocks of air to Constellation Co. (BubblyBo).

In Section 5, it states that if Constellation Realty Co. (BubblyBo) fails to meet the biweekly quota, the company (Constellation Realty Co. which is owned by BubblyBo) must pay Constellation Co. (again, owned by BubblyBo) a sum of 3,000 blocks of air.

The Plaintiff is using this section in the prayers for relief to get my client to pay something that he is not bound to do. This is another attempt to create and exploit a loophole. Section 5 is a contract between BubbyBo as CEO of Constellation Realty Co. and BubblyBo as CEO of Constellation Co. Nowhere does the contract state my client has anything to do with this section.


6. Last but not least, let’s take a look at Section 8. It says my client “may not ‘leave’” their position for 2 months.
Under legal definitions, “may” allows for the option of something. This is illustrated most aptly by the phrase “may or may not.” That means that something has the option of happening or the option of not happening.

In law, there are a few options to look at as options to impose a legal requirement on the recipient of a document.

A. Shall;

B. Will;

C. May; and

D. Must.

The only word established as the legal word to absolutely require something is must. All others do not require anything.

The contract states that my client “may not ‘leave’” his position for two months. It does not state “must not ‘leave’” his position for two months. As such, it allows for the option of leaving his position within the 2 months.

7. Let’s even look at the option in which it does require my client to stay at his position for 2 months. That is illegal due to precedent set by 2023 FCR 87. It states:
Any contract that, “stifles economic mobility and, essentially, requires someone who accepted the contract to continue working even if they do not wish to (involuntarily)” does not meet the legality requirement for a contract and is involuntary servitude which is illegal. My client was not even paid for his work. If it is ruled that my client was not allowed to leave, he is forced to work for two months without any pay by BubblyBo or Constellation Realty Co. That is, by definition indentured servitude.



Let me summarize this for you, your Honor.

My client did not sign this contract. It has been edited and on that basis alone should be thrown out and ruled null and void.

This employment contract does not meet the legal requirements of consideration, legality, or fair terms. Simply within those three areas of contract law, this contract must be thrown out and found to be null and void. So any argument made beyond those points are finding the issues with the contract if it’s allowed to stand, which it should not.

Additionally, the contract states that no loopholes are allowed to be created or exploited and doing so constitutes a breach of this contract. I have shown that the Plaintiff has created loopholes in the contract and has attempted to exploit them. That totals 4 breaches of contract on the side of the Plaintiff already.

The Plaintiff created an agreement between himself and himself under two different companies in Section 3, 4, and 5, and then wants to extract money from my client when he has no justification to do so.

The sums described in Sections 4, 5, and 10 are of blocks of air due to the fact that the contract does not state what the sums consist of. This precedent is set by 2022 FCR 52.

My client was allowed the option to leave his position within Constellation Realty Co. within 2 months.

If he was not allowed to leave his position within 2 months, that is indentured servitude (slavery) and that is illegal.

Your Honor, this contract has so many issues that it cannot be held as legally binding, and even if it is, there are additional problems with the Plaintiff’s interpretation of this contract that there is no way that this can be ruled in favor of the Plaintiff.


DATED: This 13th of January 2024

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

First, this document is not what my client signed. The contract has been edited, as seen in the first attachment in the Complaint. The Plaintiff has edited it after my client’s signature, and thus is not a legally binding contract.

OBJECTION
Speculation

The defense has not provided any evidence that proves the timing of the edits to this message. It could have been made prior to the defendant signing the contract which is extremely common when negotiating a contract. The defense is speculating that this was altered after signing without any evidence provided to support their claim.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Even if we say that this document is what my client signed (which is untrue), let’s look at all of the issues with it.

OBJECTION
Perjury

Your honor,

In the response to complaint the defense previously affirmed fact 1, which stated "The Defendant signed an employment contract with the company Constellation Co. on the 23/12/2023." They are now claiming that the defendant did not sign the contract and is changing their story to suit their current narrative.

 

[Admin23]

OBJECTION
Speculation

The defense has not provided any evidence that proves the timing of the edits to this message. It could have been made prior to the defendant signing the contract which is extremely common when negotiating a contract. The defense is speculating that this was altered after signing without any evidence provided to support their claim.

Response to Objection​

Your Honor, the definition of “Speculation” as per the objections guide is:

“When a witness is asked to testify about something they have not directly observed. Witnesses are only allowed to testify about their own direct experiences and thoughts.”

This does not apply to attorneys. I am not a witness and I have not been asked to testify and am not testifying. I am an attorney representing the Defendant and I am giving opening statements.

 

[Admin23]

OBJECTION
Perjury

Your honor,

In the response to complaint the defense previously affirmed fact 1, which stated "The Defendant signed an employment contract with the company Constellation Co. on the 23/12/2023." They are now claiming that the defendant did not sign the contract and is changing their story to suit their current narrative.

Response to Objection

I stated that my client signed an employment contract with Constellation Co. to become an employee of Constellation Realty Co.

I am stating that my client did not sign that employment contract. Meaning the employment contract shown in evidence, as it has been edited. This is a very important difference.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Let’s look at the Plaintiff. He “granted” a 22.5% “share” in Constellation Realty Co. However, that “share” may be taken at any time. That means that this is not consideration as it does not constitute something being paid to the other party as it was “granted” and not “given,” “gifted,” or “paid,” to my client. Something that can be taken at any time by someone else is not owned by you. This means that that “share” in Constellation Realty Co. is owned by BubblyBo (Constellation Co.).

OBJECTION
Perjury

Your honor,

The defense is misrepresenting the contract in this regard, the contract clearly states "Upon signing the contract, BaroqueGem65762 and MysticPhunky SHALL be granted"

Also, we have already affirmed in previous statements that the plaintiff is NOT seeking the return of the shares of stock.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

The Plaintiff has edited it after my client’s signature, and thus is not a legally binding contract.

OBJECTION
Assumes Facts Not In Evidence

Your honor,

There is no evidence to support this claim that the edit occurred after the clients signature.

 

[Admin23]

OBJECTION
Perjury

Your honor,

The defense is misrepresenting the contract in this regard, the contract clearly states "Upon signing the contract, BaroqueGem65762 and MysticPhunky SHALL be granted"

Also, we have already affirmed in previous statements that the plaintiff is NOT seeking the return of the shares of stock.

Response to Objection

Your Honor… what?

It is written into the contract that BubblyBo has the explicit right to take the “shares” back at any time. Additionally, I need to clarify that the contract does not state “shares of stock.” And it simply states “shares.”

The fact that these “shares” can be revoked at any time by either the Founder or the active CEO (Both of those position are filled by BubblyBo) means that it is not real consideration. It does not matter that the “share” is not actively being revoked. It matters that BubblyBo has the right to revoke the “share” at any time.

 

[Admin23]

OBJECTION
Assumes Facts Not In Evidence

Your honor,

There is no evidence to support this claim that the edit occurred after the clients signature.

Response to Objection

Your Honor, the definition of “Assumes facts not in evidence” as per the objections guide is:

“the question assumes something as true for which no evidence has been shown.”

What question? I am not asking any question to a witness. I am making a statement in opening statements.

 

[Admin23]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

This document is illegal or null and void in numerous ways.

First, this document is not what my client signed. The contract has been edited, as seen in the first attachment in the Complaint. The Plaintiff has edited it after my client’s signature, and thus is not a legally binding contract.

Even if we say that this document is what my client signed (which is untrue), let’s look at all of the issues with it.

1. First up, where is the consideration in this employment contract?

According to the CLF: “Consideration is the price to be paid under a contract. It is what distinguishes a contract from a. Promise. All contracts require former of consideration.” (Errors are not mine and are written into the law.)

What is the consideration that either party gave?

Let’s look at the Plaintiff. He “granted” a 22.5% “share” in Constellation Realty Co. However, that “share” may be taken at any time. That means that this is not consideration as it does not constitute something being paid to the other party as it was “granted” and not “given,” “gifted,” or “paid,” to my client. Something that can be taken at any time by someone else is not owned by you. This means that that “share” in Constellation Realty Co. is owned by BubblyBo (Constellation Co.).

Additionally, that allows a loophole that the Plaintiff can exploit for his own gain. See point 3 for the explanation.

Next, let’s look at the Defendant’s consideration. Their labor. They will work for Constellation Realty Co.

So, the Plaintiff’s “consideration” is that my client is granted fake consideration that can be taken from him. And then my client works for the Plaintiff. For free. Nowhere does it state that my client is paid anything. There is no consideration, which means there is no contract.

1. Next, let’s look at Section 10 of this document. It states:

“In event of a breach of this Contract, each Co CEO, BaroqueGem65762 and MysticPhunky, must pay a sum of 5,000 in addition to any other fines stipulated in this Contract.”

This states that in the case of ANY breach of this contract, no matter who is at fault for such breach of this contract, only one party must pay the fine. That party is the Co-CEOs, which includes my client, the Defendant. Even if the Plaintiff violates the contract, my client must pay a sum of 5,000.

This clearly violates the Foundations of Contract Law Amendment Act, which in paragraph 4 (Unfair Terms) states:

“There shall exist a legal test to determine unfair terms in standard form contracts.

• Does the term cause a significant imbalance between the contractee's rights and obligations and those of the contractor?
• Is the term reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the contractor?
• Would the term cause the contractee detriment (financial or non-financial) if the contractor tried to enforce it?
• How transparent is the term?”

If you look at the first bullet point, this contract violates the law quite clearly. No matter who is at fault in the breach of this contract, it is each Co CEO who must pay a sum of 5,000. That includes BaroqueGem65762. If a fine is being demanded from my client, it must also be demanded of BaroqueGem65763. If that does not constitute an imbalance between the rights and obligations between the contractee and the contractor, I do not know what does.

1. How do I know these loopholes I’ve mentioned can be used for the Plaintiff’s own gain? He wrote the contract. A loophole cannot be “created” by someone who did not write the contract.

In Section 9, it states:

“All parties acknowledge that this Contract is comprehensive and designed to prevent the creation of loopholes. Any attempt to exploit, circumvent, or create loopholes in the terms and conditions shall be considered a breach of contract.”

The Plaintiff created a loophole as stated above, and is now attempting to exploit it by including “2. The defendant pay the plaintiff $5,000 for breach of contract that the plaintiff is entitled to in section 10.” In the prayers for relief.

This by itself puts the Plaintiff in breach of contract for creating a loophole and then exploiting it. Those are two ways in which the Plaintiff is in breach of contract right now. However, all circumstances in which a breach of contract occurs (including this one) — you guessed it! The Defendant has to pay a sum of 5,000 to the Plaintiff. This leads me to my next point.

1. According to precedent set by 2022 FCR 52, any sum that must be paid or awarded to a party that is not specified as to what that sum consists of is to be interpreted as blocks of air. As such, the sums described in Section 4 (Termination and Compensation), Section 5 (Missed Quota Compensation), and Section 10 (Breach Penalty) are to be construed to be sums of blocks of air.
2. Section 3, 4, and 5 have no place whatsoever in an employment contract.

In Section 3, it states that Constellation Realty Co. (Owned by BubblyBo) commits to selling 1 plot of land biweekly. It further states Constellation Co. (Owned by BubblyBo) will take a 25% cut. This is a promise from BubblyBo to BubblyBo.

This has nothing to do with the Employees, BaroqueGem65762 or MysticPhunky.

In Section 4, it states that if the aforementioned biweekly quota is not met (a promised quota made by BubblyBo to himself), BaroqueGem65762 and MysticPhunky must each pay a sum of 10,000 blocks of air to Constellation Co. (BubblyBo).

In Section 5, it states that if Constellation Realty Co. (BubblyBo) fails to meet the biweekly quota, the company (Constellation Realty Co. which is owned by BubblyBo) must pay Constellation Co. (again, owned by BubblyBo) a sum of 3,000 blocks of air.

The Plaintiff is using this section in the prayers for relief to get my client to pay something that he is not bound to do. This is another attempt to create and exploit a loophole. Section 5 is a contract between BubbyBo as CEO of Constellation Realty Co. and BubblyBo as CEO of Constellation Co. Nowhere does the contract state my client has anything to do with this section.

1. Last but not least, let’s take a look at Section 8. It says my client “may not ‘leave’” their position for 2 months.

Under legal definitions, “may” allows for the option of something. This is illustrated most aptly by the phrase “may or may not.” That means that something has the option of happening or the option of not happening.

In law, there are a few options to look at as options to impose a legal requirement on the recipient of a document.

A. Shall;

B. Will;

C. May; and

D. Must.

The only word established as the legal word to absolutely require something is must. All others do not require anything.

The contract states that my client “may not ‘leave’” his position for two months. It does not state “must not ‘leave’” his position for two months. As such, it allows for the option of leaving his position within the 2 months.

1. Let’s even look at the option in which it does require my client to stay at his position for 2 months. That is illegal due to precedent set by 2023 FCR 87. It states:

Any contract that, “stifles economic mobility and, essentially, requires someone who accepted the contract to continue working even if they do not wish to (involuntarily)” does not meet the legality requirement for a contract and is involuntary servitude which is illegal. My client was not even paid for his work. If it is ruled that my client was not allowed to leave, he is forced to work for two months without any pay by BubblyBo or Constellation Realty Co. That is, by definition indentured servitude.



Let me summarize this for you, your Honor.

My client did not sign this contract. It has been edited and on that basis alone should be thrown out and ruled null and void.

This employment contract does not meet the legal requirements of consideration, legality, or fair terms. Simply within those three areas of contract law, this contract must be thrown out and found to be null and void. So any argument made beyond those points are finding the issues with the contract if it’s allowed to stand, which it should not.

Additionally, the contract states that no loopholes are allowed to be created or exploited and doing so constitutes a breach of this contract. I have shown that the Plaintiff has created loopholes in the contract and has attempted to exploit them. That totals 4 breaches of contract on the side of the Plaintiff already.

The Plaintiff created an agreement between himself and himself under two different companies in Section 3, 4, and 5, and then wants to extract money from my client when he has no justification to do so.

The sums described in Sections 4, 5, and 10 are of blocks of air due to the fact that the contract does not state what the sums consist of. This precedent is set by 2022 FCR 52.

My client was allowed the option to leave his position within Constellation Realty Co. within 2 months.

If he was not allowed to leave his position within 2 months, that is indentured servitude (slavery) and that is illegal.

Your Honor, this contract has so many issues that it cannot be held as legally binding, and even if it is, there are additional problems with the Plaintiff’s interpretation of this contract that there is no way that this can be ruled in favor of the Plaintiff.


DATED: This 13th of January 2024

Your Honor, when I pasted my opening statement into the forum post, it changed all of the numbers in the numbered points to “1.” May I edit my post to fix that problem?

 

[RelaxedGV]

All of these Objections are overruled for one over arcing reason. The Contract itself was edited and pertaining to the Speculation Objection an Attorney testifying on behalf of a client is not a Witness. The Attorney in this case is specifically a form of Representation thus not a Witness testifying before the Court.

I'll also give a more specific reason as to why I reject all of them:

Speculation - As stated before the Attorney representing a client is not a Witness thus Speculation cannot be used as per the Objection Guide.

Perjury - The specific part that is missing is the "an" which can mean multiple contracts were signed within their employment. No, none of these have been entered into Evidence however that does not mean they committed perjury. They need to contradict themselves and failed to state they did not sign "the" contract.

Second Perjury - This is not perjury. Although the Plaintiff is not suing to remove the shares the contract states that the CEO or Founder can take them back at any moment thus nullifying this Objection.

Assumes facts not in evidence - If I were to grant this then the argument of when the editing had occurred would be entirely thrown out without proof and given that it is a key part of the case it should be argued. This is also how testifying is, coming up with ways to prove the Opposing Party wrong and this is a way to do so.

As for the edit, you may edit to fix the numbers only.

I also ask that both sides keep their response, motions, and objections to one message rather than separate messages as to keep the case organized and it is just generally easier. This is the only warning I will give for this as well.

With that we will move onto Witnesses due to none being provided during Discovery (or I missed due to the messages) I will provide 72 hours to both sides to post a Witness list or declare they have none. If I missed your Witness list please either reply or repost the list.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Your honor,

I would like to call the defendant MysticPhunky to the stand.

 

[Admin23]

Objection, your Honor.

This is Breach of Procedure. As per Rule 4.9 (Witness Protocol), a witness list must be submitted during Discovery. We are past Discovery and are past Opening Statements. Additionally, opposing counsel decided to end Discovery early thus willingly revoking his right to call witnesses.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Plaintiff does not need to respond as this is of my error. Yes, Witnesses are to be called during Discovery and after relooking again (A couple times) no Witnesses were called from either side thus we will skip this phase of the trial and move straight onto Closing Statements.

The Plaintiff has 72 hours to provide their Closing Statement.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Your Honor,

The defense has several "interpretations" of this contract, but what it boils down to is what is the law, what is the intent of the contract, and the intent of those that entered into it.

To have a legal contract 7 things are required in the Foundation of Contract Law Act. These are "Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, Capacity, Legality, Legal intent and Format."

First off offer: The offer here is simple. In exchange for 2 months of work, the defendant is offered a 22.5% share of the company. The defense wants to argue that the term "share" is not defined properly, however it is beyond reasonable to conclude that in this contract both parties were fully aware of the terms and agreed to them. The defense has argued that the contract does not state "shares of stock" which is correct, as the company is not publicly traded and does not have stock. The title of section 2 in which this language is housed is "Share ownership". Anyone capable of the powers of deduction can reasonably conclude that this offer was for shares of ownership in the company.

Second is Acceptance : The acceptance here is clear. The contract states "To sign, please state "I <username> agree to the above terms" to which the defendant respond "I mysticPhunky agree to the above terms".
The defense wants to argue stating that the contract was edited, and yes at the bottom it does say (edited). However there has been no proof as to why the document was edited provided by the defense or the timing of the edit, even though they suggest that it was performed afterwards without a shred of evidence. If i recall, we are innocent until proven guilty in this land, and since guilt was not proven lets look at the facts. An offer was presented, the defendant accepted. It really is that simple.

Next, we have Consideration. Under the Foundations of Contract Law Act, consideration is defined in point 1 as "
(1) Consideration is the price to be paid under a contract. It is what distinguishes a contract from a. Promise. All contracts require former of consideration."
We even see some examples given in the following points 2, 3 and 4.
(2) There are three forms of consideration, executed, executory and past consideration.
(3) Executed consideration is a promise in return for an act
(4) Executory consideration is a promise in return for a promise"
You see, in this contact we actually have TWO forms of consideration. One, we have executed consideration in the fact that the contract gives an act (the immediate transfer of shares of ownership by the plaintiff) in exchange for 2 months service (a promise from the defendant).
Furthermore we also see the contract has executory consideration as well. The promise of 25% of the profits from any deals (a promise from the plaintiff) in exchange as well for the promise to sell 1 property every 2 weeks (a promise from the defendant).
The defense wants to argue that this consideration is "blocks of air" and not fair compensation, however the Foundation of Contracts law is clear in this regard in point (6) where it says "(6) Consideration must be sufficient but not need be adequate." One cannot argue the adequacy of the consideration, only that it is sufficient, in which the plaintiff has exceeded what is required.

Fourth, in order to have a legal contract there must be capacity. This one is simple, as CEO of the umbrella company and Founder of Constellation Realty CO, the plaintiff has the capacity to enter into contracts, and as a citizen, the defendant has the capacity to enter into an employment contract.

Fifth, we see legality. This is where the defense argues the most against this contract. To start, the defense argues that section 10 the breach penalty clause is illegal. Naturally, the one proposing and writing the contract will add a breach of contract clause to protect their interests. This is what makes a contract enforceable and gives a contract meaning. If there were no punishments for breaching a contract, then contracts would be worthless. Naturally, being the party making the offer, this typically focuses on the consequences of the one accepting the offer. This is a standard clause in almost every contract, so the fact that the defense is arguing that is interesting. It is also reasonable to conclude that the breach of contract clause only applies to the party that actually breaches the contract. Obivously the plaintiff is not suing the other Co CEO BaroqueGem65762 becuase the defendant breached the contract.

The defense argues in their opening statements "Even if the Plaintiff violates the contract, my client must pay a sum of 5,000." This is simply not true, as the defense stated in section 2 it states that the plaintiff may terminate positions which would not be breaching this contract at all. It is reasonable to conclude that if the plaintiff were to terminate an emplyoee that they would not be sued for breach of contract, any argument contrary to that is absurd.

The defense also wants to argue that this contract has "unfair terms" and therefore is void based on this breach of contract clause. As they stated in the opening statements :
“There shall exist a legal test to determine unfair terms in standard form contracts.

• Does the term cause a significant imbalance between the contractee's rights and obligations and those of the contractor?
• Is the term reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the contractor?
• Would the term cause the contractee detriment (financial or non-financial) if the contractor tried to enforce it?
• How transparent is the term?”

To which i respond :

• Does the term cause a significant imbalance between the contractee's rights and obligations and those of the contractor? No, the contract contains a standard breach of contract clause in which it is reasonable to conclude that it only applies to the party that breaches the contract. Legal intent is one that is considered in the creation of a contract and any subsequent clauses. It states the following "would a reasonable person considering all the circumstances of the agreement conclude whether there was any intention to enter into a legal relation." It is clear that the legal intent of this clause is to only hold those in breach of contract accoutnable to these terms.
• Is the term reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the contractor? Yes, it is reasonably necessary to have a breach of contract clause, as the consideration provided by the defendant is a promise. This is common practice in almost every contract.
• Would the term cause the contractee detriment (financial or non-financial) if the contractor tried to enforce it? No, it will not cause the contractee detriment to enforce.
• How transparent is the term? The term is spelled out in black and white plain as day. The consequences are as transparent as can be, and not hidden at all.

Continuing onward, the defense is arguing that the compensation be "blocks of air" and uses FCR 52 as an example. The fact that this precedent is being used is laughable as it actually serves to work against the defense. If you review the case, the CONTRACT did not specify the currency in which the contract was written in, much like the contract in our case does not specify that the currency is dollars, however the judge was able to use common sense and reason to conclude that the unit was dollars, hence the judgement on behalf of the plaintiff for $7,800 in compensation. If you ACTUALLY read the verdict, the judge stated "Council of the plaintiff should ensure they specify the units of measure when defining a prayer for relief." The judgment for the 3,000 blocks of air was given due to the plaintiffs failure to define the currency in the prayers for relief, NOT in the contract.

If anything, this precedent provides that a lack of currency designation within the contract is acceptable, but a lack of designation within the case is not, which luckily I did pass my 8th grade science class and included dollar signs in my prayers for relief requested.

Finally, the defense argues that sections 3, 4 and 5 have no right to be in an employment contract. I am not sure what exactly the defense is trying to argue here, but I will take a stab at it anyways. These are pretty standard terms in a contract where the plaintiff is simply setting the expectations for the employees and the consequences if they underperform. The defense tries to argue that the plaintiff is making a contract with himself, which yes is somewhat true. As a 55% shareholder of Constellation Realty Co and Owner of the parent company, technically yes, he is involved on both sides of the contract but that does not make it illegal. The plaintiff is turning over control of the day to day operations of the company to his newly appointed CO-CEO's and simply stating what he expects of them. To state that terms of employment don't belong in an EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT is befuddling and in no way are these illegal clauses or anything out of the ordinary.

As you can see, this contract meets all of the criteria provided thus far and does in fact pass the legality criteria.

Next, we come to Legal Intent as a criteria for a binding contract. The defense wants to argue and say that section 9 : No Loopholes clause makes this contract illegal. This clause simply seeks to affirm both parties intent to enter into a legally binding contract and that each party is entering into this contract in good faith. That they acknowledge their intent to not try to exploit any loopholes that may be created within this contract. It is clear that by entering into this contract that legal intent is present.

Last but certainly not least is format. The format is not in question, as making a contract via discord with explicitly defined terms is a commonly accepted practice for a contract.

Your honor, in summary, every single requirement for a legally binding contract is clearly laid out for you today. This contract at its core is sound. Yes, there are some grammatical errors, yes, it appears that the $ button on the plaintiff's keyboard was broken, but as I have shown through the Foundations of Contract Law, and previous court precedent this contract is legally sound, and should be enforced. Any arguments and interpretations by the defense are incorrectly applying principles that do not apply. I can quote precedent for days of contracts that are far less structured and have far more holes than this one that have been upheld in court, but in the interest of expediency I will not, as the court is well aware of the precedent that has been set. The plaintiff is simply seeking enforcement of what they are due, nothing more, nothing less.

Thank you for your time and consideration your honor.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Thank you, the Defense has 72 hours to provide their Closing Statement.

 

[Admin23]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honor,
As opposing counsel stated:

“If i recall, we are innocent until proven guilty in this land, and since guilt was not proven let’s look at the facts.”

Even though he has confused this case for a criminal one, I agree. He has not proven that my client is at fault. Let’s do take a look at the facts here.

The burden of proof is on the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has to prove that my client is at fault.

My client did not sign the contract submitted to evidence. The Plaintiff has furnished no evidence that the edited contract was changed before my client signed it. The Defense even subpoenaed the full edit record of that document. The Plaintiff has failed to prove that my client signed this document after it was edited.

Your Honor, without that evidence, the Plaintiff does not have a leg to stand on. That key piece of evidence is what this entire case rests on, and the Plaintiff has failed to prove that they did not edit the contract after my client’s signature.

Opposing counsel summed up this point aptly when he stated:

“The defense wants to argue stating that the contract was edited, and yes at the bottom it does say (edited). However there has been no proof as to why the document was edited provided by the defense or the timing of the edit, even though they suggest that it was performed afterwards without a shred of evidence.”

The burden of proof lies with the Plaintiff as they are the active party. If this were a criminal case, the prosecution must prove that the defense has committed a crime. They have to prove it. The defense does not have to provide the evidence that is required to prove the prosecution correct. The prosecution is required to provide that evidence — or in this case, the Plaintiff. He has failed to provide that key bit of evidence.


Beyond that, I’m going to walk us through this contract as it is written.

- Consideration is the price to be paid under a contract. It is what distinguishes a contract from a promise.


What did the Plaintiff give to my client as consideration? A 22.5% “share” in Constellation Realty Co. That is what was “granted” to my client. It does not say ownership share, or share of stock, or anything of the sort. All it says is a 22.5% share in Constellation Realty Co.

Additionally, my client could have that share taken back from him by BubblyBo at any time and for any reason.

The definition of ownership is the state of legal possession and control over property.

My client has no legal control over the share in Constellation Realty Co. as it can be taken from him at any time.

Opposing counsel stated:

“You see, in this contact we actually have TWO forms of consideration. One, we have executed consideration in the fact that the contract gives an act (the immediate transfer of shares of ownership by the plaintiff) in exchange for 2 months service (a promise from the defendant).

Furthermore we also see the contract has executory consideration as well. The promise of 25% of the profits from any deals (a promise from the plaintiff) in exchange as well for the promise to sell 1 property every 2 weeks (a promise from the defendant).”


Opposing counsel cites Section 3 as additional “consideration” and states that my client was entitled to a 25% cut from the profits.

This is factually inaccurate and an attempt to mislead the court.

Section 3 of the employee contract states:

“Constellation Realty Co. (BubblyBo) commits to selling 1 plot of land bi-weekly. For each plot sold, Constellation Co. (BubblyBo) is entitled to a 25% cut…”

Constellation Realty Co. is not a synonym for MysticPhunky. Constellation Co. is not a synonym for MysticPhunky. BubblyBo made a promise to BubblyBo. My client made no promise and my client does not receive a 25% cut.

- Section 4 states:

“If Constellation Realty Co. (BubblyBo) fails to meet the bi-weekly quota twice consecutively, Co-CEOs’ (including my client) positions may* be terminated. In such cases, BaroqueGem65762 and MysticPhunky must* each pay Constellation Co. (BubblyBo) a sum of 10,000.”

Let’s break this down. If BubblyBo fails to meet the quota that he promised to himself, BOTH BaroqueGem65762 and MysticPhunky must pay BubblyBo 10,000 blocks of air.

*I would like to note that the Plaintiff shows that they are aware of the difference of “may” and must” as per their use of the two in this section.

This is again holding my client and BaroqueGem65762 responsible for something they did not commit to or promise to anyone. This again falls into the idea of Unfair Terms for a contract, as per the Foundations of Contract Law Amendment Act.


- Section 5 states:

“In the event Constellation Realty Co. (BubblyBo) misses the bi-weekly quota once, the company (Constellation Realty Co. which is owned and controlled by BubblyBo) must pay Constellation Co. (BubblyBo) a compensation sum of 3000.”

BubblyBo must pay BubblyBo a sum of 3000 in case BubblyBo misses the bi-weekly that BubblyBo promised to BubblyBo.


- Section 8 states:


“Upon signing the contract, Both MysticPhunky And BaroqueGem65762 May not ‘leave’ their position for 2 months. If either does so anyway, they are required to pay a sum of 15,000$ to Constellation Co. For lost profit.”

This is a really key part of the contract, and I’ll explain why,


As I explained in Section 4, the Plaintiff knows that the word “may” is an expression of possibility, a permissive choice to act or not, and is generally construed as permissive; it does not indicate mandatory requirement. The only term connoting strict prohibition is “must not.”

The Plaintiff’s use of “may not” is crucial in showing that my client was indeed allowed to leave his position. The contract simply states that my client had the right and ability to not leave his position. It does not prohibit him from leaving. This is why in Section 4, the Plaintiff granted himself the right to fire the Co-CEOs if the bi-weekly quota was missed, however did not require the Co-CEOs to be fired. This is the key importance of the use of “may.” The Plaintiff knows the difference of definition between “must” and “may.”


- Another crucial part of Section 8 is: “15,000$”


Opposing counsel stated:

“Yes, there are some grammatical errors, yes, it appears that the $ button on the plaintiff's keyboard was broken…”

This statement is factually incorrect as the Plaintiff included one dollar ($) sign in the contract in Section 8. If the Plaintiff intended to use a dollar sign connected to the sums mentioned in Sections 4, 5, and 10, he would have and could have. This is why it is important that the court find the distinction between the sum mentioned in Section 8 and Sections, 4, 5, and 10.

These are not the same and the Plaintiff obviously did not intend to construe them to be the same as he intentionally included a dollar sign in Section 8.

- There are some factual errors that I need to correct in opposing counsel’s closing statement.


First, opposing counsel stated:

“The defense has several ‘interpretations’ of this contract, but what it boils down to is what is the law, what is the intent of the contract, and the intent of those that entered into it.”

This is incorrect, what it boils down to is: What is the law, what is written in the contract, and what did those that entered into it agree to.

Second, opposing counsel stated:

The defense wants to argue that this consideration is "blocks of air" and not fair compensation”

This is incorrect. I have never attempted to argue that consideration is “blocks of air.” I have argued that there is no consideration. These are two separate arguments and are not connected. This is an intentional misleading of the court.

Third, opposing counsel stated:

“It is also reasonable to conclude that the breach of contract clause only applies to the party that actually breaches the contract.”

Section 10 states:

“In the event of a breach of this Contract, each Co CEO, BaroqueGem65762 and MysticPhunky, must pay a sum of 5,000 in addition to any other fines stipulated in this Contract.”

In law, we do not assume unless we have to. This section is concrete in its wording. It is not reasonable to conclude something that is explicitly not written into a contract.

Fourth, opposing counsel stated:

“The defense argues in their opening statements ‘Even if the Plaintiff violates the contract, my client must pay a sum of 5,000.’ This is simply not true, as the defense stated in section 2 it states that the plaintiff may terminate positions which would not be breaching this contract at all. It is reasonable to conclude that if the plaintiff were to terminate an emplyoee that they would not be sued for breach of contract, any argument contrary to that is absurd.”

Your Honor, this is a non-sequester and makes no logical sense in the context of this case.

Fifth, opposing counsel stated:

“Continuing onward, the defense is arguing that the compensation be "blocks of air" and uses FCR 52 as an example. The fact that this precedent is being used is laughable as it actually serves to work against the defense. If you review the case, the CONTRACT did not specify the currency in which the contract was written in, much like the contract in our case does not specify that the currency is dollars…”

If you take a gander at Section 8, this is proven false. There is a distinction made by the Plaintiff between sums of dollars and sums of blocks of air.


Opposing counsel wants to bastardize the use of “legal intent” to mean something it does not. The section he refers to states:

“Intention to crete legal relations

(1) The test for intention I objective, would a reasonable person considering all the circumstances of the agreement conclude whether there was any intention to enter into a legal relation.

(2) The presumption is that the intention to create legal relations is present, the burden of proof is on the party seeking to deny it.

(3) Rebutting a presumption can be, A lack of certainty and formality, vagueness on essential terms, absence of reliance on the agreement and an agreement made in haste.”
(Errors are not mine and are written into the law)

Nowhere here does it say that “legal intent” is the way to construe and interpret a contract. Nowhere does it say to ignore what is written into a contract.


- On top of all of that, the Plaintiff has very obviously ignored the indentured servitude argument. This means the Plaintiff accepts that this contract would be legally considered indentured servitude if it was valid in the first place.


Your Honor, this case is plain and simple. There is no contract. If there was a contract, it would be invalid. The Plaintiff showed that my argument is valid as he has argued very vigorously that there is no evidence of an edit after my client signed it. Here, he is arguing the side of the Defense.


There is no possible way the court can rule in favor of the Plaintiff. Every way you look at this contract, it is illegal.


DATED: This 16th day of January, 2024.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Thank you, the Court will be in recess pending a verdict.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Verdict

IN THE DISTRICT/FEDERAL/SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
BubblyBo v. MysticPhunky [2023] FCR 111

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Defense is in violation of Section 3 and 8 through leaving the company.
2. Section 3 pertains to bi-weekly selling of plots which by the Defendant leaving violates this section.
3. Section 8 refers to the fact that the Defendant must remain employed at the company for at least 2 months before resigning. Given the Defendant did resign before the 2 months they are in violation.
4. Constellation Co is entitled to compensation from the Defendant due to the violations.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The contract is illegal, void, and ungrantable due to the following reasons:

1. The contract does not mention a defined unit for compensation primarily the lack of a "dollar" sign ($).
2. Should the Plaintiff miss a bi-weekly quota, the Defense and other Co-CEO would be held liable for the Defense's mishap.
3. There is no proper Compensation given to the Defense.

2. There Plaintiff edited the contract after the signing thus making it null and void given the Defense entered an earlier version of the contract.
3. Burden of proof relies on the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff has failed to prove that the message was edited before the signing.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. Firstly, the contract should not have been edited in the first place. With the contract being edited we have run into the issue of neither side being able to prove the true timing of the edit and given this, we have to assume the editing of the contract happened after the signing. This already would result in the contract being null and void.

2. Yes, there are no defined units to determine whether the appropriate unit for compensation is "dollars", blocks of air, bricks, etc. Thus even if the lawsuit were legal, I would not be able to determine what the true compensation would be besides Section 8 which defines an actual value. I would deduce it meant monetary value however this needs to be clearly defined.

3. This will be short as a quick definition, one of the few definitions of may is "used to say that something is possible" given this Section 8 is defining it as a possibility that should the Employee leave the Employment early then they are subject to the following clause (not exact wording) which would be following one of the definition that govern may.

4. Although the violation of Section 3 would be more apparent, once the Employee or Contractor terminate the contract is becomes null and void thus Section 3 is no longer applicable to the Defendant once the leaving of the company occurred as they are no longer employed which we stated already was a legal resignation from the employment.

IV. DECISION
1. The Court hereby rules in favor of the Defense and will not be granting the legal fees given 20% of zero is still zero.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.