Lawsuit: In Session Morgan, Sheraton, & Co. v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 34

Nacho said:
1. I do not recall.
Click to expand...
Follow-up:

1. You mentioned that Nexalin's bids were disqualified because the funds weren't available in the bidding account. How was his account balance verified during that period?

2. Is there evidence confirming that Nexalin's personal account lacked the necessary funds to place the bids? (i.e. a screenshot at the time)
 
Unseatedduke1 said:
Follow-up:

1. You mentioned that Nexalin's bids were disqualified because the funds weren't available in the bidding account. How was his account balance verified during that period?

2. Is there evidence confirming that Nexalin's personal account lacked the necessary funds to place the bids? (i.e. a screenshot at the time)
Click to expand...
1. We checked the player account, as it was not indicated that it was being sourced from an alternative account. So we ran /bal.

2. There was at the time; however, I would have to see if I still have the picture that was taken as it has been some time since the report that I checked/screenshotted it. I can check to see if I still have it.
 
2. Objections - Relevance, the institution in which I bank with is not a part of this case nor is their name relevant within the scope of this case.
 
Dragons1ayer343 said:
2. Objections - Relevance, the institution in which I bank with is not a part of this case nor is their name relevant within the scope of this case.
Click to expand...


Your Honor, it’s establishing his funds, as when he was bidding, he was bidding with bank money.
 
Dragons1ayer343 said:
2. Objections - Relevance, the institution in which I bank with is not a part of this case nor is their name relevant within the scope of this case.
Click to expand...
Objection is rejected as it provides clarity as to where the money was being held.
 
RelaxedGV said:
Objection is rejected as it provides clarity as to where the money was being held.
Click to expand...
IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER
The question is asking him to divulge personal information pertaining to his personal finance the scope of the case is about the plaintiffs lack of listing the source of his money as it was not within his personal balance. which has no relevance to the case at hand. Where has his funds has nothing to do with the fact that he had established funds.
​
 
Unseatedduke1 said:
Could you take a look and let us know what was taken from your account to pay then? Since you conveniently forgot.
Click to expand...
Objection
Arguing with a witness / Argumentative - The plaintiff is clearly adding jabs to the witness in which they called for questioning. The witness indicated to the court they don't recall what the winning bid was, the plaintiff didnt originally ask the witness how much they paid for the plot.​
 
Your Honor, This objection is unfounded. Dragnslayer provided his bank information, enabling us to confirm the location of the funds during his bidding. Additionally, I wasn't disputing the witness's testimony; rather, I was prompting them to review their records to ascertain the amount they paid. There was no hostility or contention towards the witness; instead, I simply requested clarification based on their records. Nice of the commonwealth to join us for once.
 
Snowy_Heart said:
IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER
The question is asking him to divulge personal information pertaining to his personal finance the scope of the case is about the plaintiffs lack of listing the source of his money as it was not within his personal balance. which has no relevance to the case at hand. Where has his funds has nothing to do with the fact that he had established funds.
​
Click to expand...
Motion to Reconsider is rejected as this is vital to the case itself on figuring out what has occurred. If the Witness had wished or if either side had wished we could have held this within a Closed Court Room thus protecting that privacy however none have opted for that.

Snowy_Heart said:
Objection
Arguing with a witness / Argumentative - The plaintiff is clearly adding jabs to the witness in which they called for questioning. The witness indicated to the court they don't recall what the winning bid was, the plaintiff didnt originally ask the witness how much they paid for the plot.​
Click to expand...
This Objection is also rejected as if you bid on a plot, you usually will remember the amount you bid and going beyond that, there is evidence in this very court room that the witness is able to examine themselves. Thus the question is more than able to be answered within this Court Room.

@Unseatedduke1 please provide any more questions you have within 48 hours.
 
The Defendant has 48 hours to ask cross-examination and 48 hours after every answered question for follow up.
 
Your Honor, the defendant has neglected to conduct cross-examination. We respectfully request permission to proceed.

Thank You.
 
Given the former Attorney General is now permanently deported and was also appointed to Justice before the deportation, no one will be charged with Contempt of Court.

We will however be moving on, the Plaintiff has 72 hours to provide their Closing Statement.
 
Your Honor, Members of the court,

This case boils down to a straightforward matter: an auction was conducted, the DCT prematurely closed the proceedings before the 24-hour timeframe elapsed, and awarded the winning bid to Dragons1ayer343, despite the time requirement not being met. Throughout the proceedings, witnesses have substantiated my client's position. Nacho, the DCT Secretary at the time, acknowledged uncertainty regarding the auction's timeline, stating, "It doesn't appear so," in reference to the interval between the pause of the auction and the winning bid being placed within 24 hours. Nacho confirmed attempts to verify the funds in the player's account were inconclusive as they failed to provide a screenshot. A deeper examination reveals that the only bid conforming to the requirements outlined in the Contracts Act was Nexalin's offer of $50,500. All other bids lacked clarity and failed to meet contractual standards. Therefore, Nexalin's bid stands as the only legitimate winning bid. The original auction commenced with a "$" sign, necessitating all subsequent bids to adhere to this format for validity. Regardless of perspective, it's evident the DCT's actions were erroneous. Nacho conceded the premature conclusion of the auction before the 24-hour period, supported by exhibits presented. Furthermore, bids following Nexalin's $50,500 lacked the "$" sign, solidifying its status as the sole valid winning bid. We implore this court to meticulously consider the prayer for relief, as this case, while complex, fundamentally revolves around my client's unjust treatment by the DCT, as shown throughout these proceedings.
 
Thank you, the Defense now has 72 hours to file their Closing Statement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top