Lawsuit: Dismissed Hamilton City Bank v. Wetc [2022] FCR 10

Featured Businesses

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cooleagles

Citizen
Redmont Bar Association
Cooleagles
Cooleagles
attorney
Good Evening, Your Honor


Before posting this case we must ask for an emergency injunction requesting firstly, that all information regarding the Onyx Backed Credit Obligation between Hamilton City Bank and JackK be allowed to be presented for the public eyes in this courtroom. An NDA signed by both parties prevents such information to be shared until an official subpoena and/or request is made by the government; moreover, this is us asking for such request to be made for this case. Secondly, we also request that all debt in regards to the Onyx Backed Credit Obligation between the two parties be halted until the completion of this case, as this will prevent my clients from paying any unnecessary debt, granted a favorable ruling is made. We apologize for the lack of information in this injunction, we simply are trying to best follow the terms given to us in our contract as possible. Of course, all facts will be made known in the Civil Complaint following this.

Thank you.
 

JoeGamer

Justice
Justice
Public Affairs Department
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
JoeGamer
JoeGamer
judge
Good Evening Hamilton City Bank and Mr. Cooleagles and to whomever else it may concern,

As to the first request of allowing information to be presented to this court: I believe that this case may hinge on evidence that secured by the Non Disclosure Agreement signed between Hamilton City Bank and Mr. JackK. At this time, the court request all information be brought forth during this case that relates to the case. If evidence that is not germane, it may be dismissed and may be under violation of the NDA signed. This evidence may be brought forth by both the plaintiff and the defendant.

As to the emergency injunction request for all debt in regards to the Onyx Backed Credit Obligation be halted: I will be granting the injunction request. During the duration of this case, all debts are to frozen that are a direct consequence of the Onyx Backed Credit Obligation.

Hamilton City Bank, you may file your case when ready.
 

Cooleagles

Citizen
Redmont Bar Association
Cooleagles
Cooleagles
attorney
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Hamilton City Bank (Cooleagles Representing)
Plaintiff

v.

JackK
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The defendant contacted my client with a proposal labeled the Onyx Backed Credit Obligation (Evidence 2) on January 14th, 2022. My client was very skeptical originally as he had questioned the amount of profit one would make based on the payment proposal in the contract. A proposal that has been confused with two different interpretations through its poorly written and ambiguous verbiage.
The contract states the following,
“If the Onyx Exchange drops below $23,750,000.00 in value, the accepting party will must pay out $1,000 per contract, plus an additional $0.01 for every dollar lost below the $23,750,000.00 threshold.”
My client originally interpreted this piece of the contract as follows, “we have to risk 1k for every contract than a penny on the dollar for everything lost past that point (Evidence 4).” Even after my client had stated this, it wasn’t until far after the contract was signed that the defendant presented their interpretation of the contract; an interpretation that was not only unclear throughout any of the proceedings but adds hundreds of thousands of dollars to the price my client would have had to pay back. The defendant stated, “I believe the misunderstanding in your calculations is that the $0.01 on the dollar is a lump sum, it is per contract (Evidence 8).” Section 6, Sub-Section 2 of The CLF Act states that “It cannot be vague or ambiguous,” “it” in this instance being referred to the offer of the contract. Seeing as this offer is a violation of The CLF Act, the contract should be made void in a court of law and all and any debt related to it be void with it.

I. PARTIES
1. Supersuperking (CEO of HCB - Plaintiff)
2. Cooleagles (Plaintiff’s Lawyer)
3. JackK (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. January 14th, 2022 - My client, Supersuperking specifically, is approached by the Defendant who presents an offer labeled the Onyx Backed Credit Obligation.
2. My client then signs the contract, with an interpretation that the payment to be made, when the Exchange drops below a certain value, was $0.01 per every dollar dropped below the value; a simple additional fee to the 1k per contract.
3. The defendant, after the contract was signed, presents their interpretation to my client, stating that the $0.01 is for each dollar dropped below the value for each contract (multiplying my client’s interpretation by the number of contracts). This is of course then added to the 1k per contract
4. To offer an example for the court to best understand the math and price difference. Say one were to purchase 50 contracts, and the market value were to drop from $23,750,000 to 23,000,000 (a $750,000 decrease). My client’s method would require a payment of $57,500; whilst, the defendant’s method would require a payment of $800,000. As it is seen, this is a very large difference and due to this contract’s ambiguous writing, it could leave any individual to fall ill to hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The offer violates The CLF Act as it is ambiguous and offers open space for interpretation via poor writing. I want to make it very clear that we are not here to argue which interpretation is correct, for that would take an unknown amount of time. We are arguing whether or not its writing is ambiguous and open to numerous interpretations; furthermore, whether a third party, blind to the situation surrounding the contract, could pinpoint and understand what the contract states without any question or doubt.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. That the contract in question is made void and any and all debt relating to the said contract be made void as well.
2. A permanent injunction preventing further use of this contract with the current wording it contains; in other words, ensure that the verbiage of the clause in question is improved and better clarity is given to future clients of the Defendant.


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

Evidence 1 (Proof of Representation) -
senior-management - Google Chrome 1_24_2022 9_43_47 PM (2).png

Evidence 2 & 3 (Onyx Backed Credit Obligation + Signatures) -
souper - Google Chrome 1_22_2022 10_34_59 PM (2).png
HCB v. JackK 3.png

Evidence 4, 5, 6, & 7 (Conversation between Plaintiff and Defendant prior to signing contracts) -
HCB v. JackK 4.jpgHCB v. JackK 5.jpgHCB v. JackK 6.jpgHCB v. JackK 7.jpg

Evidence 8 (Defendant stating their interpretation of the contract) -
gB3hUvbK42hnKXDrOFUgP23YSzMSQlvz9PVx3Lxef6wafbp02yj2jXbC6CV3jp2S9-j3QHVR8FdqEjVlKYYlrwBqiI5XicFyTm_X3MFx0trqT384Msj0a78SZfC79PQGrC1MGPxU

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 24th day of January 2022
 

JoeGamer

Justice
Justice
Public Affairs Department
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
JoeGamer
JoeGamer
judge
1643083743050.png


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

@wetc is required to appear before the court in the case of the Hamilton City Bank v. Wetc [2022] FCR 9. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favor 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.​
 

wetc

Citizen
Secretary
Education & Commerce Department
Donator
wetc
wetc
commercesec
Gonna need some time on this one boss man
 

JoeGamer

Justice
Justice
Public Affairs Department
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
JoeGamer
JoeGamer
judge
I'll extend an additional 24 hours. Please have a motion to dismiss or answer to complaint ready in that time.
 

drew_hall

Citizen
Justice
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
Drew_Hall
Drew_Hall
justice
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Hamilton City Bank (Cooleagles Representing)
Plaintiff

V

JackK (Lovely Law Firm Representing)
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
The Defendant moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. This lawsuit is an example of a frivolous lawsuit meant to void a mutually agreed upon contract in order to save the Plaintiff’s money. This was a contractual agreement that both party came to agree upon, but now that one party has had an unexpected loss they were confident in not having they have decided to take this to the courts to try and get out of paying my client the money they are rightfully owed.

2. This contract is very clear on the terms laid out in it. Before signing the contract the Plaintiff, souper, even acknowledges the terms are per contract by asking my client “So max loss for you is 80,000?” which would be the max loss should the contract be treated as ‘per each contract.’ Meaning, in the contract it states that my client, JackK, must pay out to the accepting party, souper, $100 per week. The only way to arrive at the number 80,000 is to multiply 100 by 8 (8 weeks until the contract expires) and to take that 800 and multiply it by 100 (the number of contracts.) Additionally, it is clearly laid out in the contract stating the accepting party “...must pay out $1,000 per contract, plus an additional $.01 for every dollar lost below the $23,750,000 threshold.” If the Plaintiff was aware that my client’s potential loss would be the weekly payment multiplied by 100, in addition to it being stated clearly in the contract, it is quite obvious this case is nothing more than a last effort to not pay out money owed to my client.

3. Referencing the reasoning the Plaintiff wishes to void the contract due to being “vague and ambiguous,” these terms do not equate to disputable. If a contract has one disputable clause that does not mean the entire contract is to be thrown out. The court exists to rule on disputed interpretations. Along with this, the word vague itself is a vague term. To my client, there is nothing vague about “per contract” meaning per contract.

4.As stated before, the Plaintiff has already acknowledged that the terms of this contract would exist in a manner between all the contracts. This single contract is one independent document to set the terms for the 100 sets to be signed. Signing 100 contracts does not equate to the merging of all into one, the contracts would stand to be 100 independent contracts. The contract itself is multiplied by 100 not because of the wording of the contract, but because 100 instances of the same contract were opened and signed.

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: The 27th of January 2022
 

Attachments

  • 030C6F47-269A-417A-A28E-DAAF94116158.jpeg
    030C6F47-269A-417A-A28E-DAAF94116158.jpeg
    38.7 KB · Views: 49
  • 94F119AC-0D6D-4B50-9AA6-F89234CAA253.png
    94F119AC-0D6D-4B50-9AA6-F89234CAA253.png
    604.5 KB · Views: 56

JoeGamer

Justice
Justice
Public Affairs Department
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
JoeGamer
JoeGamer
judge
If the plaintiff wishes to provide a rebuttal, the may present one within the next 48 hours.
 

Cooleagles

Citizen
Redmont Bar Association
Cooleagles
Cooleagles
attorney
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Good Evening
Your honor,

I would firstly like to say that this case is in no way related to an attempt to, “void a mutually agreed upon contract in order to save money.” This case is simply a way to ensure that my clients were not scammed of any sort and that their money is not to be taken advantage of. Furthermore, this is also in no way related to a frivolous case. As per the Court Rules and Procedures, a frivolous case is one that, “does not have any serious legal intent or purpose.” This case calls a well-known law into question, regarding a contract that my party believes to have ambiguous and questionable intent/terms. If there is no legal intent or purpose within that, then I do not know what more the Defense is looking for. Also per the Court Rules and Procedures, a Motion To Dismiss should only be used in response to an inaccurate or frivolous case. All facts presented up to date have been accurate and we have already clarified this case not being frivolous.

Secondly, although my client’s statement can very much be considered as what the Defense states, it does not change the verbiage written in the contract. As mentioned previously, the line quoted by the Defense, “...must pay out $1,000 per contract, plus an additional $.01 for every dollar lost below the $23,750,000 threshold,” in no way solidifies which of the two methods could be accurate. Notice how the first part states “per contract”, whilst the other half does not. On the other hand, the comma could represent a continuing thought; which could mean the Defendant’s method is accurate as well. One with very little law experience, such as my client, might look at the more simplistic side of it and without any second guess read the second half as just an additional lump sum added on the contract. Some others might not. This is the very small detail that gives this contract ambiguous traits and what brought us into court today. Additionally, why was such wording not added in the first place? If the Defendant wanted this additional sum to be per contract, why not just write those words in? Surely, the Defendant would want such an important clause for their client, one that drastically changes the sum might I add, be written absolutely clear.

In regards to their arguments about the singular term not being disputable enough, that is just a poor excuse to get this case dismissed. Nowhere in the CLF act does it state that a certain amount or certain requirement is necessary to make such an argument. Additionally, what is to happen if there is a term like this in a contract? By the Defendant’s standards, one simple term wouldn’t hold enough merit to be brought into court, so what does one do? Does one simply ignore the differing opinions, perhaps one side is forced to be drawn into the opposing parties' view, simply because they said so?! I will agree with the Defense in one thing, “per contract” certainly means per contract. It is just a shame that they could not add those two simple words to the second half of the clause mentioned prior; which would easily clear all opposing views, solidify any questioning minds, etc.

Now, in regards to the Defenses’ final point, “The contract itself is multiplied by 100 not because of the wording of the contract, but because 100 instances of the same contract were opened and signed.” If perhaps, this was made more clear through proceedings, prior to the contract being signed, the wording of the contract would not matter at all. However, if you look back throughout the conversation between my client and the Defendant, prior to the contract being signed, not once does the Defendant state something along these lines. It wasn’t until far after the contract was signed, that the Defendant stated that the contracts were written to suffice one bought contract; therefore, buying multiple refers to whatever amount of instances. Had this been clear from day one, this case would have never made it to court. I find the repetition within this case to be uncanny; moreover, my client is being told imperative details after the contract is signed. “Clarity” is only being brought after the contract is signed in every scenario.

Finally, I would like to say that new discoveries have been made through the DEC’s support, it has been discovered that the Defendant knowingly participated in market manipulation. This is of course a direct violation of the Corporate Crimes Act, Section 5, subsection 1; therefore, meaning that this contract also is in violation of section 12 of the CLF Act, as any statement of debt would/should be considered false due to the dictated manipulation by the Defendant. This discovery can be addressed and proven further via a witness who can speak largely to some behind the scene activities of the Defendant. I ask that at least the witness be fully heard out as their testimony could be detrimental to unveiling a possibly larger situation than originally suggested. I apologize for these facts not being presented earlier on, they simply were not known or available at that time. If any elaboration is needed or to be requested, the plaintiff will gladly clarify and resolve any thoughts.

Thank you.
 

JoeGamer

Justice
Justice
Public Affairs Department
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
JoeGamer
JoeGamer
judge
After consideration, I have decided to reject the motion to dismiss as this case is not frivolous as the motion claims.

The court calls for the opening statement of the plaintiff, followed by the defense's. The plaintiff has 48 hours to give their opening statement or face being held in contempt.

Finally, the Courts of Redmont use the legal name of all parties involved. The legal name of everyone is based on their in game username, not their discord user name. Please refrain from using JackK in any later filings of this case and instead use Wetc, the legal name of the defendant.
 

Cooleagles

Citizen
Redmont Bar Association
Cooleagles
Cooleagles
attorney
Your Honor,

My apologies but the Plaintiff would like to request a 24 hour extension due to in real life conflicts. We are sorry for any inconvenience.

Thank you.
 

JoeGamer

Justice
Justice
Public Affairs Department
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
JoeGamer
JoeGamer
judge
24 hours extension granted.
 

Cooleagles

Citizen
Redmont Bar Association
Cooleagles
Cooleagles
attorney
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor and Opposing Counsel,

This case, as mentioned prior, has been brought forth to court to discuss a contract between the Defendant, Wetc, and my client, souper, called the Onyx Backed Credit Obligation. This contract arranged that my client would buy a certain number of contracts as well as be paid via weekly installments until the expiration of the contract. The risk factor of this contract was of course that if the value of the Onyx Exchange dropped below a specific point ($23,750,000) my client would be forced to pay $1,000 per contract bought, “plus an additional $0.01 for every dollar lost below the $23,750,000.00 threshold.” The quoted term from the contract proves to be extremely significant to the contract as it discusses what my client is to pay, granted the prerequisites are met. During further deliberations of this contract, 2 separate interpretations for the quoted line were presented, one by each party here in court. Most importantly, these two interpretations create a large gap in the amount of money my client would have to pay back. With the importance and significance of this term, a correct answer must be the only answer, as either party could face improper treatment if it were incorrect. One being paid improperly, and the other simply giving unnecessary amounts of money. So today, we have brought this contract to court today to now argue 2 points, questioning its legality.

Continuing from the previously mentioned facts, our first point is that we are questioning whether or not it has broken Section 6, sub-section 2 of the CLF Act as the term mentioned above is open to interpretation and/or ambiguous. It can be seen as ambiguous as one individual could read this additional $0.01 per dollar as a lump sum. It's the more simplistic and perhaps even common understanding of payments this way. An individual pays something per the amount of item they bought plus some additional change for whatever the scenario may be. However, another interpretation, the Defendant’s interpretation, argues that it would be that additional sum per contract. They could argue this as it is part of the same sentence and therefore a continuation of the per contract used in the beginning of the sentence. It is very difficult to indicate which way is the correct way, as they both could be considered correct depending on how it is seen and read.

Secondly, we are questioning whether or not the contract has broken Section 12 of the CLF Act, as there is now new evidence leading towards market manipulation being associated with the Defendant. If the Defendant had committed the said crime, the value of the Exchange would be fixated and/or false to its true value. This then means any statements of the Exchange’s value and the recurring debt based on this value would be false; in other words, a misrepresentation by the Defendant would be present.

In regards to our first point, there is very little left to be presented for arguments. At this point, we are nearing a point in which arguments will simply be repetitive, and it will come down to you, your honor, to make a decision from then. In regards to our second point, however, we have much evidence both through screenshots and testimony that we hope sways the court to not only believe but understand what perhaps could be a major scam against my clients and other partakers in such an agreement.

We hope the arguments and information above please the court.

That is all for now,
Thank you
 

JoeGamer

Justice
Justice
Public Affairs Department
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
JoeGamer
JoeGamer
judge
Thank you Mr. Cooleagles.
The defendant's council may now present their opening statement. Please provide an opening statement in 48 hours or you will be held in contempt.
 

drew_hall

Citizen
Justice
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
Drew_Hall
Drew_Hall
justice
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Hamilton City Bank (Cooleagles representing)
PLAINTIFF

V

Wetc (Lovely Law Firm representing)
DEFENDANT

OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor, opposing counsel,

To start off, I would like to point out the part in the contract the Plaintiff is suing my client over. In this specific section it entails that the Plaintiff, as mentioned previously, is required to pay “$1,000 per contract, plus an additional $.01 for every dollar lost below the $23,750,000 threshold.” This area of the contract can easily be understandable when looking at this as the layout for the 100 contracts the Plaintiff signed. This section is not a standalone contract on its own, but rather a section within the foundation the other contracts will follow. Because this contract was the layout for every contract that was signed, it is quite apparent that the section in question would be laid out in each of them therefore making that section per contract alongside the $1,000 per contract.

Moving on from that clarification, the Plaintiff states the contract may have broken section 6, sub-section 2 of the CLF Act due to it being “open to interpretation and/or ambiguous.” Your honor, this contract was, as stated above, the layout for all 100 contracts signed by the Plaintiff. This would mean that this contract, including that section of the contract, was signed 100 times. If it would have been convenient for either party, my client could have copied and pasted the contract in question 100 times, but since it was agreed upon by both parties that this would be the signing of 100 contracts, neither felt the need to do so. Regardless, it is apparent that if that were to have happened then the facts would remain the same. The Plaintiff signed that section of the contract, along with the contract in its entirety, 100 times. This was even clarified in his questioning of the contract to my client evidenced in my motion to dismiss. It is unreasonable to think that only now it is open to interpretation when the Plaintiff themself acknowledged this point ever before signing the contract.

To address the supposed market manipulation the Plaintiff seems to believe my client participated in, I would first like to make it clear to the Court that my client is not, and has never, been found guilty of market manipulation, much less had a charge brought upon them for it. To mention it within this Court case is to try and cast doubt and mistrust for my client. This case was filed with the intention of clarifying one section of the contract and its interpretation, now it is delving into a conspiracy that somehow my client manipulated the market in order to deprive the Plaintiff of money which is certainly untrue. I assure the Court that my client did not manipulate the market in any such way that would have negatively impacted the Plaintiff or the standing of the contracts signed. But nonetheless, I can actually provide proof to the Court that that is the exact thing the Plaintiff, along with others, is trying to do in an effort to negatively impact my client currently and can bring forth a witness to further this claim.

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: The 3rd of February 2022
 

JoeGamer

Justice
Justice
Public Affairs Department
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
JoeGamer
JoeGamer
judge
Thank you Mr. Drew_hall.
The court ask both the plaintiff and the defendant if they would like to bring any witnesses or testimonials to the stand. Please provide a list to the court within 24 hours.
 

drew_hall

Citizen
Justice
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
Drew_Hall
Drew_Hall
justice
Your honor,

The Defense would like to call LuckyPerms to the stand.
 

JoeGamer

Justice
Justice
Public Affairs Department
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
JoeGamer
JoeGamer
judge
1644031995976.png

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

The following witnesses are required to appear in court as witnesses on request of the Plaintiff.

Wuutie and LuckyPerms are hereby summoned to the Federal Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont in Case [2022] FCR 10 as witnesses. Please familiarize yourself with the case as it stands at present. You will receive questions from the plaintiff and may also be cross-examined, and vise versa for the defendants witnesses.

The witnesses will be called in the following order:
Wuutie (Requested by the Plaintiff)
LuckyPerms (Requested by the

I ask that the plaintiff provides a list of all the questions they want answered by Wuutie in a single post. If some questions need to be withheld as they depend on answers given to earlier questions, that is also considered reasonable. When the plaintiff is ready, they may post questions to the first plaintiff witness.

Following Wuutie, LuckyPerms will be called to the stand. Same procedures as above will apply with the exception of the defendants beginning with the questioning followed by the plaintiff.

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.
 

JoeGamer

Justice
Justice
Public Affairs Department
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
JoeGamer
JoeGamer
judge
Thank you both for your quick appearance. We will start with Wuutie. The plaintiff has 24 hours to post their questions. Please follow the instructions in the witness summons regarding questions.
 

Cooleagles

Citizen
Redmont Bar Association
Cooleagles
Cooleagles
attorney
Your honor,

The plaintiff would like to enter the following evidence listed below into evidence.

Conversation between Defendant and Witness
1644169582518.png

1644169648471.png

1644169663499.png


Defendant "cashing in" on Contract (January 15th, 2022)
1644170856990.png


Questions:
1. Is the conversation between you and the Defendant (pictures 1-3) accurate to your memory; in other words, it has not been manipulated and/or edited?

2. If the answer prior is yes, would and did the delisting of these companies affect the Onyx Exchange?

3. If so, from your own calculations, how much did these delistings affect the Onyx Exchange stock value then?

4. Do you think it could be seen that the Defendant's aim when delisting these companies, a mere day after the signing of the contract and the same day as cashing in on said contract, was to obtain a large payout through dropping the share value? In other words, do you personally believe the Defendant had mal-intent in delisting these companies?

The plaintiff may have some additional questions to be asked dpending on the answers to these questions.
 

Wuutie

Citizen
Justice
1. Those pictures are not manipulated. So they are accurate.
2. Yes it would to the overall value.
3. Around 715k in value.
4. I can’t judge on it if it’s manipulation or not but I found it strange of listing the companies and after a couple of days delisting them. DEC were investigating it and I granted them full acces. I believe it can be seen as market manipulation in the end.
 

Cooleagles

Citizen
Redmont Bar Association
Cooleagles
Cooleagles
attorney
The plaintiff has just one last question,

At what time did the Defendant approach you about delisting the 3 companies on the 15th?
 

JoeGamer

Justice
Justice
Public Affairs Department
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
JoeGamer
JoeGamer
judge
If the defendants wishes to cross examine the witness, they may post their questions within 24 hours.
 

drew_hall

Citizen
Justice
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
Drew_Hall
Drew_Hall
justice
Thank you, your Honor. The Defense would like to ask the witness:

1. Have you personally seen companies delist temporarily for a short period of time?

2. Were you aware that the Onyx Exchange had valued companies incorrectly around the time my client temporarily delisted their businesses?

3. If the previous answer is yes, are you able to see how that could make investors feel uneasy?

4. Are you aware that around the time my client delisted his companies that recent scandals revolving around the Onyx Exchange had become public which led to people being wary of the Onyx Exchange and its stability for a short period of time?

5. If the previous answer is yes, do you agree that companies listed on the Onyx Exchange have some sort of obligation to their investors to not lose their money while also protecting the companies entrusted with them?

6. Finally, when my client relisted his companies are you aware that the valuation errors made by the Onyx Exchange were corrected and the public felt it was more secure?
 

Wuutie

Citizen
Justice
1. No, only for long term. This means 1-2 months + he relisted after couple of days.
2. I would not say incorrectly. We valued all the companies on their possessions and not the current state of leadership etc. So on the valuation of the companies it was not a mistake.
3. Of course that can make investors feel uneasy but they knew the system of valuation.
4. First of all it was not a scandal. It was a liquidity problem that was solved in a short time. And instability of the market is always a difficult time for the investors.
5. I don’t think any company sees it that way.
6. Companies are in an audit and the errors made on valuation on them was because of his companies. He gave us info that was not reliable anymore. And we are on our way to great thing with the exchange.
 

JoeGamer

Justice
Justice
Public Affairs Department
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
JoeGamer
JoeGamer
judge
Unless the defendant's counsel has any more questions for Wuutie, the defendant may question their witness LuckyPerms. Please make sure all questions are in one post, and provide questions (or follow up questions) for the witness within 24 hours.
 

drew_hall

Citizen
Justice
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
Drew_Hall
Drew_Hall
justice
Thank you, your Honor. We will follow up with these questions:

1. Respectfully, you did not answer my question to #2 and from that #3. I will ask again, are you aware that Costco, and I believe Onyx Ind., was valued incorrectly by the Onyx Exchange around the time my client delisted his companies?

2. Due to those incorrect valuations, can you see why it might make investors feel uneasy about the exchange, even if temporary? And from that why a company would temporarily delist to maintain investor confidence?

3. If you believe companies feel/have no obligation to earn their investor's money, what would you say the point of the exchange is and what the point of investing into a company with no aim to earn investors money would be?

4. Finally, if you don't believe a company being short of over $100,000 equates to a scandal, can you at least see where it would cause those participating and investing money into it would lose confidence in the stability of it?
 

Wuutie

Citizen
Justice
1. Those companies were valued correctly at the time following our procedures and controls of the sheet. This is based on their value of assets and other things.
2. Ofcourse but many people have shown confidence in us and those were only a couple of people like your client. And delisting of a company is not the way to go in my business educated opinion. You show by this manoeuvre that the company does not take responsibility towards investors.
3. That money is used to help growing the business in exchange for a part of the company. Then they reward investor by showing better profits and worth so the value rises. They complement each other and the exchange is a platform for companies and investors to find each other and have a professional opinion on value.
4. Ofcourse but we have remain transparent and secured everyone’s account as well as multiple back ups on those accounts. It’s not easy to hear but if you had both sides of the story investors who I spoke to remained confident in me and the exchange. It was more a crisis on people management of investors to convince them.
 

JoeGamer

Justice
Justice
Public Affairs Department
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
JoeGamer
JoeGamer
judge
Unless the defendant's counsel has any more questions for Wuutie, the defendant may question their witness LuckyPerms. Please file the questions within 24 hours
 

drew_hall

Citizen
Justice
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
Drew_Hall
Drew_Hall
justice
Thank you, your Honor.

Before I begin questioning the other witness, I just have one more point to bring up. In the attached screenshot (a screenshot from the Costco channel on the Onyx Exchange) it is evident that the error I have mentioned twice now was there. I would like to ask Wuutie:

1. Will you confirm that this screenshot is has not been edited or altered in any way?
2. If your answer to the 1st question is yes, why have you denied any errors twice now during this examination when clearly there was?
 

Attachments

  • 990712EC-7A41-4E00-9D63-21D6B723C92C.jpeg
    990712EC-7A41-4E00-9D63-21D6B723C92C.jpeg
    481.7 KB · Views: 48

Wuutie

Citizen
Justice
1. No it has not.
2. Sorry but you taking here something out of context. This does not refer to the way that you want. The calculation error was made by me for forgetting a side of the sheet. This is a human error and corrected it couple of hours later. I’m only human after all. So if the company points it out then I edit it immediately.
 

drew_hall

Citizen
Justice
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
Drew_Hall
Drew_Hall
justice
Your Honor, if I may, I would like to formally request 2 counts of perjury be placed on this witness. I have repeatedly asked about an error which led to a company being valued incorrectly which was denied each time. Only after my posting of the evidence have they admitted now to a “human error” which caused an incorrect valuation by a miscalculation. In my first line of questioning I asked about companies valued incorrectly and finished off with saying that they were corrected, which the witness has only now just admitted occurred. This examination has taken up too much time due to the witness denying there was ever a calculation error which led to the value of a company being incorrect, only to now say there was an error, but it was a “human error.” Regardless of it being a “human error” or not, there was an error which led to a company being incorrectly valued which was what I have asked multiple times. This witness has obviously made attempts to mislead this court on what actually occurred only to now admit all along it had occurred.
 

Cooleagles

Citizen
Redmont Bar Association
Cooleagles
Cooleagles
attorney
Your honor,

If allowed, the Plaintiff would like to respond to such an objection. We ask for 24 hours to make such a response.

Thank you
 

JoeGamer

Justice
Justice
Public Affairs Department
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
JoeGamer
JoeGamer
judge
Both the witness and the plaintiff’s council may respond. Please report within 24 hours.
 

Cooleagles

Citizen
Redmont Bar Association
Cooleagles
Cooleagles
attorney
Your honor,

The witness answered counsel's question a long time ago with their very first response. Additionally, the definition of perjury is as follows, "When a witness has perjured themselves on the stand by lying or strongly misrepresenting facts on the stand." The witness certainly never lied or misrepresented facts on the stand, they gave their best answer based on their knowledge; moreover, the witness never stated that an error was not made, they stated that in their opinion an error was not made. The witness's previous testimony in regards to counsel's question is as follows.

"I would not say incorrectly. We valued all the companies on their possessions and not the current state of leadership etc. So on the valuation of the companies, it was not a mistake."

"Those companies were valued correctly at the time following our procedures and controls of the sheet. This is based on their value of assets and other things."


Just to remind the court of counsel's original question,

"Were you aware that the Onyx Exchange had valued companies incorrectly around the time my client temporarily delisted their businesses?"

Now, the witness was trying to explain to counsel that proper procedure was always followed when the companies were valued; moreover, it is their opinion that the company was never valued incorrectly. Whilst, there was a small incident of certain information being left out in the original presented data, all actual calculations were made accurate, which is what the witness has testified to.

Your honor, are we really going to feed into, respectfully, the nonsense presented by the defense? Even if the witness did take a step outside the line, does this situation really warrant such a high charge in this court? A situation where one or two numbers were left off a chart, a situation that would only slightly adjust the exchange's value, a situation that was fixed within literal hours? What is so dire to the Defense about his testimony that they will go to these lengths to achieve it. Where in such a small time frame, does the defendant suddenly have a large motive, besides to profit off my clients, to delist 3 companies from the exchange and then relist the same companies the next day?
Even if this situation was so dire, and they truly need a specific response, why not present the image originally? Why have they waited this long to present this evidence and ask the very question they did. Your honor, the witnesses answered the question to the best of their ability and offered their honest, respectable, and quite frank expert opinion on the situation. This in all honesty is a blatant attempt by the defense to either force an answer out of the witness, which the plaintiff has been ever so kind to not raise in the court, or an attempt to impeach the witness and dismiss their testimony. If anyone has been wasting the court's time, it has been the Defense your honor, not the witness.

We hope this pleases the court,
Thank you
 

Wuutie

Citizen
Justice
I would like to add the following reasoning to the Plaintiffs Counsel: So the question was very general. I understood the question that companies were valued wrong without corrections. So that there were mistakes in the total value of a company. Because of the fact that the question was up for interpretation the advantage falls on the other party, me, following the legal procedures. This means that I’m free to interpret the questions if the question is too general. If the question was specific and more clear, I would have a different answer. I answered the question to the best of my ability and knowledge of the facts. And when you see to my questions, perjury was never the case.

Eitherway I did not correct prices on onyx industries and they were correctly valued without an human error. This was just a new update. But they said I perjured myself on that company as well. So only one possible count of perjury can be given which is not the case given the reason above.

Also does the language against a witness not common and very rude. I gave up free time for this testimony, so I should be treated with respect and dignity. I can’t stand to be called: ”This witness” etc.
 

JoeGamer

Justice
Justice
Public Affairs Department
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
JoeGamer
JoeGamer
judge
You may. Please respond within 24 hours and keep it brief.
 

drew_hall

Citizen
Justice
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
Drew_Hall
Drew_Hall
justice
Thank you. I would like to address the Plaintiff first - it is quite simple and not sure what the objection is, information was left out. That was the error. This error led to a company being incorrectly valued and I myself pointed out that it was corrected later on, the perjury comes from the witness misleading the court that that never happened until presented evidence proving otherwise. The picture was not provided originally because I did not expect the witness to claim there was no error in valuation, which was why in the first follow up I asked specifically about the company in question. This was still somehow denied. It is obvious this witness misled the court about the events and that’s why I requested the charges be placed.

Next I will address the witness. The question is not general enough to allow for misinterpretation, I asked very specifically about an error that led to an incorrect valuation, there is no room for that not to be seen as clear. And no, I requested two perjury charges for asking the same question twice and both times you did not admit to the error (leaving out some assets) not about Onyx Ind. because I could not provide evidence that and was not entirely sure that was the second company, why I said “I believe..” Finally, I addressed you as “this witness” to specify I was requesting them on you, not to be rude. Even in the Plaintiff’s objection you are referred to as the witness because in this case that is what you are. If that came off rude that was not my intention and apologize for that.

That is all, Your Honor.
 

Wuutie

Citizen
Justice
Objection, arguing with the witness, since I’m still a witness I can use this objection to defend my intentions. The question as followed:
“Were you aware that the Onyx Exchange had valued companies incorrectly around the time my client temporarily delisted their businesses?” is too general. It does not include a specific section as: “even if the value was corrected” then it would have a different answer. Now it’s up to my interpretation of the question.
 

drew_hall

Citizen
Justice
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
Drew_Hall
Drew_Hall
justice
Your Honor, respectfully, this witness has spoken out of turn to a response I was granted by the Judge yourself, which is not permitted. I did not argue with the witness, but rather clarified, which is what I was granted permission to do in an effort to defend the client I represent. I clarified the supposed generality of my question(s) in the latest response I gave, which, again, was granted by the honorable Judge himself, you. I request that the court remind the witness of Contempt of Court as up to this point all parties have followed them despite this witness. This witness has not only misled the court multiple times, but has now breached procedures, its outrageous to find otherwise.

I formally request that the court remind this witness of breach of procedure alongside contempt of court. A reminder of contempt of court is necessary, as it is bogus that the witness can continually defend an action that is seemingly indefensible, and on top of all this witness has now spoken out of turn in an effort to prove it. To let it go unignored is to deny my client a fair trial and I can, and definitely will, prove that.
 
Last edited:

drew_hall

Citizen
Justice
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
Drew_Hall
Drew_Hall
justice
I meant to include in the filing, but the precedent set in lawanoesepr v The Redmont Bar Association [2022] DCR 4 shows the witness clearly was out of line to respond to a rightfully and legally granted response granted by the court to me. My apologies for not including in the original filing.
 

JoeGamer

Justice
Justice
Public Affairs Department
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
JoeGamer
JoeGamer
judge
There will be order in the court.

Objections are noted.

Drew_Hall, do not argue with a witness. You are in no position to argue with a witness on the stand. Consider this a formal warning. Those called to the stand are to be questioned formally, not to be argued with.

As to the request for perjury charges, I see no attempt by Wuutie giving purposefully dishonest responses. While it is true that before companies have been evaluated incorrectly due to human error, these errors were corrected, so the witness's statements were accurate.

To everyone involved in this case, including witnesses, there will be no disorder in my courtroom. I will not accept this kind of behavior in my courtroom. Don't get brazen with me. The plaintiff, defendant, and witness will remain in order or face being held in contempt.

Now Drew_Hall, you may continue your questioning of Wuutie or move forward to question the other witness. You have 24 hours.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top