Lawsuit: Adjourned Galavance v. Trentrick_Lamar, ShinHeYing, & Hong_Kong_101 [2021] FCR 76

[Cooleagles]

Motion to grant Injunction to protect company assets


The recent discovery of Tax evasion by a shareholder of my client's company, Rae Evergrand, is putting the integrity and company financial holdings in jeopardy.

Due to the recent court case where the shareholder ( to be named ) will be standing trial for tax invasion we believe it is best in the company interest that his shareholding be put into administration within the companies legal office until the case has been adjourned.

If the shareholder is to be allowed continued access to his shareholding and financial equitable share, he could cause irreparable damage to the company; therefore, we ask that the shares be frozen from access and put into the hands of the legal offices until the court case concludes.

Shareholder: Hong_kong
Share percentage: 25%

25% will be then frozen and put into administration of the legal officer.

Thank you, your honor
Cooleagles, Attorney to Galavance

 

[Cooleagles]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Galavance (Cooleagles Representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Trentrick_Lamar
ShinHeYing
Hong_Kong_101
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

To begin, last month my client left the server, leaving his company in the hands of a trusted friend, Trentrick_Lamar. However, when handing over the company, he specifically asked that the $400,000+ in company funds stay for company use only (found in Evidences 2 & 3). Staff mistakenly handed over that money to Trentrick_Lamar, which was then dispersed between himself and the other two defendants (found in Evidences 4 & 5). To this day this mistake, written in text, has not been remedied; furthermore, as seen in other recent court cases, some of the money is allegedly now being used to test and break the law (Lawsuit: Pending - The Commonwealth of Redmont v. ShinHeYing & Hong_Kong_101 [Case No. 06-2021-26-01] | DemocracyCraft ). Additionally, taking a step back to what was April of this year, Rae Evergrand (my client’s company) spent $80,000 of company funds on a building meant to be used as an HQ for Rae Evergrand. All was going well until soon after my client’s departure, it was discovered that the funds were put to waste and misused by the defendants; moreover, the property was ignored and neglected. After his company’s complete balance was drained by his “predecessors”, my client has now returned in hopes of retrieving what originally was and is rightfully his company’s.

I. PARTIES
1. Galavance (Cooleagles Representing) - Plaintiff
2. Trentrick_Lamar - Defendant
3. ShinReYing - Defendant
4. Hong_Kong_101 - Defendant

II. FACTS
1. April 25th, $80,000 was withdrawn from the company balance and used to buy a property for the company. The project was jointly managed by ShinHeYing and Hong_Kong_101, which at first had been making progress. It wasn’t until a little after my client left, May 15th, progress halted and the property became a complete waste.

2. May 13th a staff ticket was made addressing my client’s leave of the server. Austin27, the main staff member working the ticket, worked with Galavance and the defendants in seeing out the will.

3. Throughout dms posted on the ticket, Galavance specifically states that his 75% of the company can go to Trentrick_Lamar, but in regard to the company funds says, “None goes to HK or Trent. It’ll stay company money for the company. Only to be used for the company.” (Evidence 3)

4. Staff, going against my client’s wishes, said, “So we’re gonna just say that you can do whatever you want with the money - I think that’s best.” Instead of enforcing the idea that company money was to be used for company purposes, they allowed the defendant’s to do as they please. Obviously, the defendants with no complaints, decided to keep the money instead of speaking up. Matter of fact, Tentrick_Lamar discussed with Galavance about a system of channels to keep track of company expenses, as my client had asked (found in evidence 6). However, for some reason my client was never notified of said channels existing.

5. Trentrick_Lamar then dispersed the money between himself and the other defendants. The split goes as follows,
Trentrick_Lamar - $180,000
Shinyju - $90,605.905 ($10,000 of which was used to pay off a debt.)
Hong_Kong - $90,605.905
A total of $361,211.81
(plus the $80,000 for the building which adds up to the total balance of the company $441,211.81)

6. As the current prosecution against them accuses, Shinyju and Hong_Kong used the money to commit tax evasion. Let it be known that this is not an accusation against the defendants, simply an acknowledgment of an existing prosecution against them in which they allegedly used my client’s money to commit tax evasion.



III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The defendants along with a misguided staff broke the wishes of my client in his will.
2. They took the company’s money and wasted it on properties they neglected, and allegedly used the money to commit crime.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $180,000 from Trentrick_Lamar (The amount he took from the company’s balance)
2. $80,605.905 from Shinyju (The amount given by Trentrick_Lamar minus the 10k used to repay the debt)
3. $90,605.905 from Hong_Kong (The amount given by Tentrick_Lamar)
4. $80,000 split between shinyju and Hong_Kong for the wasted property. (This is split between Shinyju and Hong_Kong because they were the main advisors of the project)

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)
Evidence 1 (Proof of representation)

Evidence 2 (Proof of company total before all expenses + withdrawal of $80,000 for the property. After this the rest of the money ($361,211.81) was then divided between the 3 defendants as described above).

Evidence 3 (Conversation between my client and Austin27)

Evidence 4 (Proof of staff neglecting my clients wishes and the defendants doing nothing but accept money that isn’t theirs)

Evidence 5 (Proof of defendant, Trentrick_Lamar, dividing the money between the other two defendants)

Evidence 6 (Conversation between my client and defendant, Trentick_Lamar, in regards to keeping track of all company expenses for my client. However, as mentioned above, my client was never further notified of any record keeping).

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 28th day of June, 2021

 

[Westray]

Emergency Injunction ​

The court hereby grants the injunction. I hereby order Hong_Kong_101's 25% share of Rae Evergrand to be frozen and temporarily transferred to the legal officer.

Breach of such court order will result in contempt charges, and as per the court orders, abuse of this type of order can result in civil liabilities.

​

 

[Westray]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of the Galavance v. Trentrick_Lamar, ShinHeYing, and Hong_Kong_101. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one. In addition to that, should either defendants wish to represent themselves individually in a separate case, they should also inform the court.​

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, due to the complex nature of this case, the defense asks for 24 more hours to prepare our defense.

(Apex Law Firm is representing all three defendants. I have proof if the Court requires)

 

[Westray]

Your honor, due to the complex nature of this case, the defense asks for 24 more hours to prepare our defense.

(Apex Law Firm is representing all three defendants. I have proof if the Court requires)

The request for an extension of 24 hours has been granted. When presenting your defence please include consent of representation.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

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

Galavance
Plaintiff

v.

Trentrick_Lamar, ShinHeYing, & Hong_Kong_101 (Represented by Apex Law Firm - SumoMC and AlexanderLove)
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
All defendants dispute the accusations tendered by the Plaintiff.

II. DEFENSES
1. The Plaintiff has been absent from his company for over a month, and has no right to it any longer.
2. The Plaintiff does not own the company; Trent inherited Galavance’s original 75% controlling share, while Hong_Kong_101 owns the 25% share. (Exhibit #2)
3. Galavance gave the company, along with its money, to Trent, which left him to be able to make corporate and fiscal decisions as he pleases and sees fit for the company. (Exhibit #1)
4. No defendant is bound to the departing wishes of the Plaintiff, for they signed no contract to keep the money in the company or other such measures.
5. The company was only liquidated after the defendants assumed full rights and control over the company; the company was no longer Galavance’s and he no longer has a say on how the money in the company can be spent.
6. Therefore, since no contract was signed, and the defendants owned 100% of the company Rae Evergrand, they were in full legal rights to spend the money how they saw fit.
7. The Plaintiff willingly and voluntarily transferred his assets to a defendant, and therefore no longer holds those assets, nor can lawfully reclaim the same. (Exhibit #2)
8. To clarify, Trent gave his 75% share to ShinHeYing, and Trent also no longer owns or retains any controlling interest in the company Rae Evergrand.

III. PROOF OF REPRESENTATION

IV. EVIDENCE
The defense enters the following exhibits into evidence:

https://imgur.com/a/iIBt1wt

The defense is also entering the entire ticket transcript into evidence: transcript-closed-2933.html

V. CANCELLATION OF THE INJUNCTION
Given the Plaintiff no longer owns the company whatsoever, he has no right to take any controlling interest of said company. Therefore, the defense motions for the defendant’s 25% share of Rae Evergrand to be unfrozen and transferred back to its rightful owner. This malicious prosecution filed by a person who already gave up their say of the company should not be permitted to repossess or affect any shares of the company.

VI. INJUNCTION FOR DISCORD ACCESS
Galavance was, through deception, given the CEO role on the Rae Evergrand Discord despite having no ownership over the company. He used this role to lock out the defendants who are the rightful owners of the company out of the Discord. I am hereby motioning the Court to grant an injunction for Galavance to restore each of the defendants’ proper roles on the Rae Evergrand Discord. This Discord contains necessary evidence in the case, and the Plaintiff intentionally locked out the defendants to gain an advantage in this Court case. ShinHeYing would get ownership of the Discord given she owns 75% of the company, as well as the CEO role. Hong_Kong_101 would reobtain the COO role. I also ask the Court to ensure Galavance does not lock either defendant out of chat channels they should be able to see, such as the Executive channel. Finally, I ask the Court to ensure Galavance deletes no message in the Rae Evergrand Discord, as it is evidence in this case.

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 July, 2021

 

[Westray]

Thank you. Given the request for the court to cancel the Plaintiff's injunction, and a new request for an injunction by the Defence, I would ask that the Plaintiff please provides a response specific to those requests. This will allow the court to fully understand the arguments for and against each injunction before removing and granting one.

 

[Cooleagles]

Your honor,

I will gladly respond to the Defense's requests. To save the court's time and since they are relative to my response, I will also be presenting our objections to their Answer To Complaint.

Response to their request #1
Firstly, their request to cancel our injunction is based off false information, your honor. They claim that my client has no ownership or current relationship with Rae Evergrand, which would be incorrect. The Defense states that defendant, Trentrick_Lamar, gave what was my client's 75% of the company to other defendant, ShinReYing. I would like to enter Exhibits 1 & 2 to evidence, which show that Trentrick_Lamar gave the 75% back to my client after he politely requested. Therefore, it would be uncanny to cancel our injunction based off the false idea that my client has no ownership. It would also be dangerous giving the defendant, Hong_Kong_101, his shares back in any event during this case simply due to the complexity and nature of it.

Objection #1 Perjury
Whilst on this topic, it is important that I bring up my first objection to their Answer to Complaint, which is that the Defense has perjured themselves. I would now like to enter Exhibit 3 into evidence. Exhibit 3 shows a conversation between my client and defendant, ShinReYing, where my client asks for ownership of the company back. The defendant's response to this was, "Ask Trentrick. He is the one who owns the Rae server. He just gave me the CEO role." To summarize the meaning behind this, it shows that the supposed owner of Rae Evergrand, never was the owner from the start. Also, if you look back at Exhibit 1, you can see that Trentrick_Lamar agrees by saying, "Wait hold sh*t are you suing Shin for squandering funds and lying about ownership in the company."
Your honor, where one bird flies, surely the flock is not far behind. It is clear that somewhere along the Defense's line of communication, someone lied leading them to perjury.

Response to their request #2
Circling back to my response to the plaintiff's requests, they follow up their first request by asking that the defendant's be given access to the discord. Yes, it is true that my client did lock them out of the discord; however, it was in no means to threaten the legitimacy of this case or its arguments. My client, locked the defendants out because they were a threat to his company. As a majority shareholder within Rae Evergrand, my client made a decision that he thought was best for his company's interests, unlike the defendants. This is no different than our emergency injunction in the beginning of this case. It is just protective barriers made to keep the financial structure and overall company's integrity secure. If the defense were to need some sort of log from a certain channel of the discord, the plaintiffs would be more than willing to hand it over at the simple request of a warrant.I am here to practice good and honest law, and I will ensure my client does the same.

Objection #2 Obstruction of Justice
Finally, this leads to my final objection which happen behind the doors of this here courtroom. After our complaint had been posted, I soon found myself receiving a message from none other than the Defense's Counsel, AlexanderLove or GargatheOro. I'd like to enter Exhibit 4 into evidence, a conversation between myself and Defense's counsel. Now, at the end of this conversation I will admit that I did get a bit fiesty and perhaps cheeky myself; moreover my disbelief for this type of treatment from a lawyer to another lawyer got the best of me. I apologize if it offends. however, I in no way stooped to the level of disrespect Defense's counsel went to as they enacted such conflict, and threatened my reputation/position based off of a verdict to a case that barely has begun yet. No lawyer should ever say these things, for this is a career of honesty, justice, and betterment of those we stand by. If this is not seen as obstruction of justice in these courts eyes, then I respectfully ask it be seen as an example of how lawyers should not treat another.

I hope these words appeal to the court, and that some punishment be dealt to the defendants for the formidable violations of this courthouse.
Thank you, your honor.

Evidence 1~

Evidence 2~

Evidence 3~

Evidence 4~

 

[Westray]

Thank you. I believe that the court has received enough information to make a decision on these emergency injunctions.

The court will be maintaining the emergency injunction to freeze such shares, given that the Plaintiff has provided evidence that may correlate the Plaintiff's remaining involvement in the company. In addition to this, the complex nature of this case conveys an urgency and need for such temporary action.

As for the injunction for discord ownership filed by the Defendant, the court will be denying such injunction for the time being. The court will, however, acknowledge that, should the Defendant need access to company discussions and or records of Rae Evergrand, the court can consider issuing warrants for respective channels.

As for the alleged Obstruction of Justice, I find the actions of the Defendant's counsel, to threaten the reputation of the Plaintiff's counsel, to be rather repugnant. Albeit, it would seem as though the exchange was solely between two lawyers, likely for the purpose of out of court negotiation, therefore I don't see how it can constitute obstruction of justice beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, I would advise the Plaintiff's counsel to seek investigation by the Redmont Bar Association, whom is charged with the responsibility of regulating lawyers, per the Legal Board Act. Otherwise, the matter of accused obstruction of justice is hereby dismissed by the court.

 

[Westray]

As the court has now heard the opening remarks of each party, we will now proceed. The court would like to thank both parties for the arguments they have presented here thus far.

Was there any witness testimony or additional evidence that either party wished to present before we proceed to closing statements?

 

[SumoMC]

Your Honor,

First and foremost I would like to apologize for my lawyers actions during the course of this trial and in that private DM, He has been suspended and full investigation has been launched by the RBA Council, I will be taking lead on this case.

 

[Westray]

Your Honor,

First and foremost I would like to apologize for my lawyers actions during the course of this trial and in that private DM, He has been suspended and full investigation has been launched by the RBA Council, I will be taking lead on this case.

Alright, thank you. Please be aware of the question posed above. We have completed opening remarks and are now on to the witness testimony and additional evidence procedure of the case. Please inform the court when possible about witnesses and additional evidence, or let us know if you wish to proceed to closing statements. This applies to both parties.

 

[SumoMC]

Yes your honor, although due to these circumstances I ask for a little extra time from the court to get the affairs and a proper case in order witness wise

 

[Cooleagles]

Your honor,

The plaintiff has no objections to this request for we also could use a small bit of extra time. Whilst in the light, your honor, the plaintiffs noticed you responded to our Obstruction of Justice objection, and we thank you for offering your opinion and assistance to the situation. It is now being properly handled. However, we did notice there was no response to the Perjury objection. We were only wondering if it was done on purpose or not.

Thank you, your honor.

 

[Westray]

Yes your honor, although due to these circumstances I ask for a little extra time from the court to get the affairs and a proper case in order witness wise

Very well. Since you have not specified how long of an extension, you are hereby granted an additional 48 hours. If you need more time than that, please specify to the court.

Your honor,

The plaintiff has no objections to this request for we also could use a small bit of extra time. Whilst in the light, your honor, the plaintiffs noticed you responded to our Obstruction of Justice objection, and we thank you for offering your opinion and assistance to the situation. It is now being properly handled. However, we did notice there was no response to the Perjury objection. We were only wondering if it was done on purpose or not.

Thank you, your honor.

As per the precedent of The State v. Didna, in Case No. 04-2021-21-03, the court reviewed all accusations in the case in regards to perjury in the final verdict of the case. I believe it's most appropriate that all facts are understood in this case complete to the closing statements, to truly determine the proper truth in accordance with the alleged perjury conducted.

As a final reminder, you both have 48 hours to present additional evidence, and or ask the court to summon any witnesses respective to the interests of this case. Thank you.

 

[SumoMC]

We are requesting that this case be put on hold until the RBA Council investigation is completed

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, The Lovely Law Firm will be taking over this case from Apex Law Firm. All three defendants have given me consent of representation.

To that end, I am calling all three defendants to testify. I would like to call Austin27 to testify, and I would also like to cross-examine the plaintiff if possible.

Thank you, your honor.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Additionally, I ask the Court to allow me to issue a rebuttal against the Plaintiff's objections, as it could be critical to this case and occurred during a tumultuous time.

 

[Westray]

Your honor, The Lovely Law Firm will be taking over this case from Apex Law Firm. All three defendants have given me consent of representation.
View attachment 13219
View attachment 13220
View attachment 13221

To that end, I am calling all three defendants to testify. I would like to call Austin27 to testify, and I would also like to cross-examine the plaintiff if possible.

Thank you, your honor.

This has been the second instance in which the Defence has switched their counsel. From AlexanderLove to SumoMC back to AlexanderLove respectively. If the Defence can please appoint an adequate and consistent counsel as to not prolong this case, it would be most courteous.

As for the representation by AlexanderLove, unfortunately the Redmont Bar Association has communicated to the Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont that there may be expulsion of the practicing license of Mr. AlexanderLove, under the authority of the Legal Board Act, pursuant to §4.1.

From the Council of the Redmont Bar Association, communicated by poemhunter, noted:

We find the actions taken from AlexanderLove I one of malpractice ( improper, illegal, or negligent professional behaviour. ) and is not off an ethical standard that has been practiced within the RBA jurisdiction from the our examination of his interaction with both other lawyers and the RBA institution.

The RBA Council has voted on the following:

Motion to remove practicing licence: Motion passed
Motion to remove membership of the RBA: Motion passed

This decision can be appealed after a two month expungement periods subject to the RBA Ethics Committee.

So unless AlexanderLove has some sort of objection to the decision and or authority of the Redmont Bar Association, I will ask that the Defence finds a counsel who currently maintains a practicing license, preferably an adequate and consistent one, as noted prior.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Yes your honor,

Pursuant to the Legal Board Act, Section Five, there must be a valid reason for my disbarment and removal of licensure that adheres to one of those requirements. Suspension is not a valid reason pursuant to the law. Furthermore, pursuant to Section Four of the same law, the Redmont Bar Association may only remove my ability to FILE lawsuits, and the law does NOT say they can strip me of my ability to practice and represent clients in on-going / active cases. Thank you, your honor.

 

[SumoMC]

Your honor,

I did not want to get involved but the RBA has disbarred Alexsander Love. He can no longer pratice law and this is ludicrous. If the court strikes down the decision of the council this will be setting a dangerous precedent of not allowing the RBA the full discretion over the legal field as prescribed in the constitution. I ask that we drop this and allow the case to proceed as both party’s have already agreed to have me represent them, as I am a Licensed lawyer

 

[SumoMC]

Your honor,
I know this has been a lot of changes but the defendants have agree to Apex Law Firm, SumoMC as sole counsel I will provide evidence below

 

[Westray]

I appreciate the arguments presented by both AlexanderLove and SumoMC respectively, however please recognize this case is of the matter of Galavance v. Trentrick_Lamar, ShinHeYing, and Hong_Kong101. At this point, the court would simply want a consistent counsel to represent such Defendants.

Since the Defendants have recognized SumoMC as their new counsel once again, we will be proceeding as such.

 

[Westray]

@Cooleagles and @SumoMC you both have 48 hours to ask the court to call witnesses and or present additional evidence. Please do not prolong these proceedings.

 

[Cooleagles]

I wouldn't want to prolong it any further, your honor. The plaintiff has no witnesses to be called and is ready to move on to closing statements.

 

[SumoMC]

I will be utilizing the 48 hours

 

[SumoMC]

Your honor,

We will be calling President Austin and Rep. End also we will be refuting some claims of the Plaintiff

 

[SumoMC]

We are Refuting Evidence 3, my Client thought that he was talking about the Discord server, there was a miscommunication and it has since been cleared up and using that evidence is simply lying to the court in order to sway the opinion of the court.

Your honor I would also request you order Galavance to stop hiring, advertising and making changes to the company while the ownership of the company is still in question

 

[Cooleagles]

Your honor,

By all means may Evidence 3 be removed. It's purpose was to prove that defendant, ShinReYing, doesn't currently hold shares in the company; specifically, my client's 75% share of the company. I will direct the court back to Evidence 1, which says it all.

In regards to the Defense's motion, it would be ridiculous to prevent my client from improving his company. He owns 75% share in the company, the other 25% currently in the legal hands of Rae Evergrand. If the defendants were ever loyal to Rae Evergrand, they would allow for my client to fix the immense damages they have caused.

Thank you, your honor.

 

[SumoMC]

Your Honor,
what we are proving is that the company no longer belongs to Galavance therefore he can not make changes to the company.

 

[Cooleagles]

Your honor,

The plaintiff respectively requests to see this evidence first before a baseless motion is granted.

 

[Westray]

We are Refuting Evidence 3, my Client thought that he was talking about the Discord server, there was a miscommunication and it has since been cleared up and using that evidence is simply lying to the court in order to sway the opinion of the court.

Your honor I would also request you order Galavance to stop hiring, advertising and making changes to the company while the ownership of the company is still in question

Given that the Plaintiff has no objection, Evidence 3 will not be considered.

As for the injunction request, unfortunately the court will be rejecting such for the time being. The Defence has provided no justification and or detail into what the Plaintiff may or may not be doing in relation to such. If they claim that the Plaintiff has been making damaging changes in this disputed company, they should provide evidence or explain what exactly the Plaintiff has been doing.

Your honor,

We will be calling President Austin and Rep. End also we will be refuting some claims of the Plaintiff

The court will be summoning such per the Defence's request. Please do note that I believe Rep. End is on a leave of absence, so if the court is unable to get a response from such witness within 48 hours we will have to proceed regardless.

 

[Westray]

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

@Austin27 and @xEndeavour are hereby summoned to the Federal Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont in Case No. 06-2021-28 as witnesses. Please familiarize yourself with the case as it stands at present. You will receive questions from the prosecution and may also be cross-examined.

President _Austin27_will be called first, with Representative xEndeavour being called second. I would ask that the Defence provides a list of all the questions they want answered by each witness in a single post. If some questions need to be withheld as they depend on answers given to earlier questions, that is also considered reasonable. When the Defence is ready, they may post questions to the first witness.

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

Once the witnesses of the Defence have been questioned and cross-examined, the court will proceed to hear any last-calls for witnesses and or additional evidence before we proceed to closing statements.


​

 

[Austin27]

Present

However, I should notify the court that my interaction in this matter was in my capacity as a server Administrator. Separation between staff and government should be of importance.

 

[SumoMC]

Given that the Plaintiff has no objection, Evidence 3 will not be considered.

As for the injunction request, unfortunately the court will be rejecting such for the time being. The Defence has provided no justification and or detail into what the Plaintiff may or may not be doing in relation to such. If they claim that the Plaintiff has been making damaging changes in this disputed company, they should provide evidence or explain what exactly the Plaintiff has been doing.


The court will be summoning such per the Defence's request. Please do note that I believe Rep. End is on a leave of absence, so if the court is unable to get a response from such witness within 48 hours we will have to proceed regardless.

Your Honor,
This shows the change of hands

 

[SumoMC]

Further more,


When Galavance left the server, he willingly gave everything to Trentrick_Lamar (evidence in ticket transcript)



Trentrick_Lamar liquidated 50% of the company balance and all of the company real estate that had previously been in Galavance's name but transferred to him by staff (evidence in ticket transcript)



Trentrick_Lamar then gave his 75% share of the company and its remaining assets to ShinHeYing, and divided up the remaining company balance between Hong_Kong_101 and ShinHeYing (evidence in ticket transcript)



This remaining company balance divided between Hong_Kong_101 and ShinHeYing was originally intended to remain legally company property, and the two defendants only intended to keep the money temporarily until a contract establishing an ingame company balance to hold the money was made, since ShinHeYing had hit the company limit, and wanted to keep rights to the ingame company.



Two weeks later, an agreement could not be reached, and both ShinHeYing and Hong_Kong_101 became disinterested in continuing the operations of the company. They then decided to liquidate the money, and in doing so transfer the money they each had gotten into their personal possession.



The company still continued to legally exist, with the following ownership split: 75% ShinHeYing and 25% Hong_Kong_101



**Neither of Cooleagles's submitted evidences show that the 75% ownership of the company was then transferred back to Galavance**



ShinHeYing could not be said to have transferred any ownership of the company to Galavance **because they misunderstood galavance's request, and believed Galavance was asking for the discord server on which the company used to do business**. This is why they directed Galavance to Trentrick_Lamar, because although Trentrick_Lamar gave up all his share of the company to ShinHeYing, he retained the physical ownership of the discord server. (this refutes evidence 3, which was accepted by Cooleagles)



Trentrick_Lamar could not have been said to transfer company ownership to Galavance because by the time Galavance asked him for it, **he had no ownership or share of the company to give to Galavance in the first place**, as he had given all his share of the company to ShinHeYing several weeks prior. Furthermore, Trentrick_Lamar was in a state of confusion at the time and did not quite understand the situation or what Galavance was asking. (this refutes evidences 1 and 2, which cooleagles based Galavance's ownership of the company on after he agreed to evidence 3 being thrown out)



Therefore, Galavance still has no ownership of the company, as no shareholder or past shareholder ever knowingly gave him ownership of the company in a competent state of mind

 

[Cooleagles]

Your honor,

There has been a large confusing argument on both sides of the table in regards to what was the Rae Evergrand company. To bring clarity to this large confusion, that even I at a point was stuck in, the company is disbanded.

The company was disbanded by End due to the lack of response from the defendants in who gets what. The remaining $180,000 was then left in the hands of defendant, Trentrick_Lamar, who decided to split it between the other 2 defendants. The only problem with this is that End states in the ticket, " @Trentrick_Lamar has been appointed executor of the remaining $180,000 in accordance with Galavances direction." It is more than clear that minimal to no effort was made in seeing my client's wishes. The Defense's own lawyer stated that they became, "disinterested" in the company and decided to liquidate. Going back to my original Evidence, it is clear, this is against my client's direction. My client's specific direction were to use the money for company purposes, not to liquidate it. Although the company was disbanded, that money was not meant for them to use on themselves.; furthermore, possibly use to commit a federal crime.

There is no 75% or 25%, there is no legal company, your honor. The only thing that exists is the discord, in which both defendants gave to my client. Therefore, my client is more than obligated to change the discord as he sees fit. Any hiring of employees will obviously be halted and stopped as there is no company to hire employees to.

Your honor, defense's counsel, and those who read. I hope this brings mass clarity to the case; furthermore, refocuses the current pace of the case towards the real issue. The defendant's taking Rae Evergrand's balance, and liquidating it to themselves. Usually, it is fair to say that who owns the company oversees the company; however, End specifically stated that the rest of that money was to be used at my client's direction. Anything else is a simple violation.

Thank you.

 

[SumoMC]

Your honor,

The Plaintiff left ALL of his assets to the Trent, therefore he split the money Down the middle as he was entitled to do so. The Plaintiff said he was leaving all of his assets to the Defendent and since the company was being disbanded the money had to go somewhere and with Galavance gone and tent owning all of his assets he decided to liquidate and split the money down the middle, that was in his right.

 

[Cooleagles]

Your honor,

My client, specifically asked that the company money be used for company purposes. At the conclusion of the staff ticket, End said himself to follow through on this request. This was the only direction my client gave. This was the only thing my client asked of his predecessors.

Since the company was disbanded, one may ask what they were to do. They could have simply taken the time to message my client, one little bit of communication and care of my client's assets would have prevented this whole case. The only thing the defendants were "entitled" to do, was give my client the respect he deserved as he passed $400,000+ to them to further what he started.

Thank you, your honor.

 

[SumoMC]

Your honor,

My client, specifically asked that the company money be used for company purposes. At the conclusion of the staff ticket, End said himself to follow through on this request. This was the only direction my client gave. This was the only thing my client asked of his predecessors.

Since the company was disbanded, one may ask what they were to do. They could have simply taken the time to message my client, one little bit of communication and care of my client's assets would have prevented this whole case. The only thing the defendants were "entitled" to do, was give my client the respect he deserved as he passed $400,000+ to them to further what he started.

Thank you, your honor.

Objection, the plaintiff expressed no interest in the game or server anymore and left all of his assets to my clients therefor they did what they saw fit.

 

[SumoMC]

Furthermore the plaintiff consented to having the funds transferred to Trent and he made his intent known then he was going to split it down the middle with the others. Trent was well within his right to split the money as he saw fit. There was no contract legally binding Trent to carry out the wishes of plaintiff

 

[Cooleagles]

Your honor,

Although they did leave the assets to the defendants, he left them with one simple instruction.
"Nonegoes to HK or Trent. It'll stay company money for the company. Only to be used for the company." Evidence 3 in my complaint.

The plaintiff sees the perspective of the Defense; furthermore, they might even be right on a regular case. However, End said to use it at my client's single direction. Are we just going to completely ignore what staff had to say?

Additionally, as much as I and I'm sure Defense's counsel would love to bicker back and forth on this, we are simply at a point where it's the same arguments being repeated over and over. I would request we move on to the witnesses that the defense has summoned so we can let them move on to their other duties.

 

[SumoMC]

Objection your honor,
there was no legal binding contract, this is a court of law not an ethics class. My client broke no laws here the fact that the plaintiffs lawyer admired we’d be right is just proving our point. My clients did everything correctly and legally. If there was a contract that was signed then this would be a different case but there was not so therefore they funds were used as my client saw fit. Austin’s in his capacity as a staff member even said they could do what they want with the money evidence below

 

[Westray]

I would like to remind both parties to maintain order in this courtroom and to not speak out of turn.

There will be no further emergency injunctions granted unless evidence or an explanation specifically proves an imminent harm. I understand that the Defence seeks to have the Plaintiff's rights to the disputed company limited via an emergency injunction, however as asked prior, the court has still not received evidence and or an explanation as to what Galavance is doing with such company that poses such an urgent injunction.

I will ask that the Defence please proceeds their questioning of the first witness, _Austin27_. Thank you.

 

[SumoMC]

We will get that list out later today, thank you your honor

 

[SumoMC]

_Austin27_.:

1.)Did you or did you not say Trent could use the funds as he wanted because the company was transferred to Trent?

2.)Since the money belonged to trent was he within his right to divide as he saw fit?

3.) DoesPlaintiff have any right to the money once he turnedit over along with the company)

5.) Did Galavance, in his messages to you, ever specifically state that his bequest of his possessions to Trentrick_Lamar was contingent on Trentrick_Lamar following his request that no money be liquidated from the company?

4.) In your opinion when someone says they leave all of their assets to someone what does that mean and can they di

 

[Cooleagles]

Objection

The Defense's first question is a leading question, your honor. We would ask that the Defense either remove the question or properly reword it.
Furthermore, the Defense's second question is testifying for the witness. We would ask the same from the Defense, either remove the question or reword it. The witness deserves to answer the questions himself and not be prompted by the Defense.

Thank you.

 

[SumoMC]

Your honor,

We would like request that base in the answer to question 1, we be allowed to ask follow up questions

 

[SumoMC]

The first question is straight forward