Lawsuit: Adjourned Olisaurus123 v. Walmart Co [2022] SCR 3

RelaxedGV

RelaxedGV

Citizen
Justice
Judge
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Supporter
RelaxedGV
RelaxedGV
judge
Joined
May 4, 2021
Messages
1,128
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Olisaurus123 (RelaxedGV representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Walmart co.
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The plaintiff sold $9,640.40 worth of items to Walmart Co building. The building was in fact open and easily accessible with no sign of any kind warning about no trespassing from the direction of /spawn. Defendant sued Plaintiff for selling items to a sell chest shop that was created by Defendant prior to the selling. Defendant claimed that 5 block high wall was evident enough that it wasn’t open for sales, however the fact that there were chestshops in a store that had been in the same condition for a while (evidence #1 provided ) shows that it was not evident enough that it was closed for sales. Defendant also said in the original lawsuit, in their words, “The only possible way to enter the plot was the roof” which is simply not true.


I. PARTIES
1. Olisaurus123
2. Walmart co.

II. FACTS
1. Plaintiff sold items to a chest shop
2. No warnings were given along with not a single trespassing sign
3. A wall around 50% of a building, does not mean no trespassing.
4. The Plaintiff was not trying to claim they owned Walmart co.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Slander
2. Perjury

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Removal of the full $34,890.30 fine.
2. $500 for slander.
3. $900 for legal fees.

Witnesses:
Olisaurus123
Montilou
Trentrick_lamar
Teuntje1234567
xerxesmc
cjcroft

Evidence:
#1
1648091519427.png

1st ss: 2022-02-05_16.49.24
1648091543718.png

2nd ss: 2022-02-05_16.49.59
1648091548491.png

3rd ss: 2022-02-05_16.50.20
#2
https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/c-054-25jan22.11290/

Represent Consent:
1648091076863.png

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 24/03/2022
 
Last edited:
supreme-court-seal-png.8642


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

The Walmart Company is required to appear before the Supreme Court in the case of Olisaurus123 v Walmart Co.

Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​
 
Hello I am present and am familiar with the case. May I ask for a slight extension to find a suitable lawyer for the case please on behalf of Walmart Co.?
 
Extension granted. The Defence has 72 hours from now to return with suitable legal representation.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Olisaurus123
Plaintiff

v.

Walmart Co (Cooleagles Representing)
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defense disputes all claims

II. DEFENSES
1. “The Plaintiff sold $9,640.40 worth of items to Walmart Co Building.”
I presume the argument being made by the Plaintiff is that their fines were larger than the amount they contributed to the chest shops. Therefore, my client must have perjured themselves, stating that their individual fine was the +$16,000 that they ended up paying. This is incorrect as my client never stated such in the original case, my client only ever stated that the total amount of money lost (from both Olisaurus and Montilou) was +$16,000. In other words, there is no merit to their perjury claims, as my client never said any sort of false statement. If in fact their argument is centered toward the Judge who made the original ruling, my client can’t speak to a Judge’s fair and just verdict.

2. “Defendant claimed that 5 block high wall was evident enough that it wasn’t open for sales, however the fact that there were chest shops in a store that had been in the same condition for a while (evidence #1 provided ) shows that it was not evident enough that it was closed for sales… A wall around 50% of a building, does not mean no trespassing.”
Firstly, as is seen in the evidence below, the wall covered much more than 50% of the building; however, for the sake of argument, let’s say it did cover 50% of the building. The Plaintiff argues that the huge, blue, and yellow wall that blocked, “50% of [the] building.” was not “evident enough” that it wasn’t opened for sales. Yet, it was evident enough for a building inspector to create a lack of progress report on the building. Moreover, the main image shown in this report is the huge, blue, and yellow wall, blocking “50% of [the] building.” So clearly the existence of this wall, no matter its size, has shown that the building was unfinished, and obviously, no customer is meant to be serviced in an unfinished facility.

3. “Defendant also said in the original lawsuit, in their words, “The only possible way to enter the plot was the roof” which is simply not true (evidence #2 provided).”
The evidence shown by the Plaintiff suggests they are mainly referring to the windows, which have no actual glass. So to reiterate, not only was there a huge, blue and yellow wall, blocking “50% of [the] building,” but there were also windows with no glass. Taking a step back to the original case, in regards to the open roof, the original ruling said that, “a reasonable person should conclude that they are not to enter and they are especially not to conduct trade there.” To that I ask this, is a reasonable person supposed to enter through the windows? Does it matter whether or not the roof was the only accessible way in the building? No, it does not matter, just as one is expected to not enter through the roof, they are also not expected to enter through the window, or any other absurd entrance beside a door.

4. “The building was in fact open and easily accessible with no sign of any kind warning about no trespassing from the direction of /spawn.”
As was ruled in the original case, “The requirement of 2 warnings or a sign applies only to permission to legally initiate PvP against the trespasser.” The law itself specifically defines trespassing as being, “in a place without the consent of the owner or management of the place.” Circling back to my previous two points, the building was clearly unfinished, no customers should be serviced in an unfinished building; therefore, the owner never intended or consented to allowing customers inside the building.

5. “The Plaintiff was not trying to claim they owned Walmart co.”
I presume this is speaking towards their slander claim of relief, which if it is, would have no merit being argued in this case. The purpose of such an appellate court is for, “the losing party [to] decide that they would like to appeal [a] court's decision.” Not once did the Plaintiff argue that my client was “slandering” them in any way, shape, or form. It is to my understanding, your honors, that if the Plaintiff wants to argue such slander claims, they may go to one of the lower courts and do so. However, since it is not mentioned once in the original case, there is no decision to be appealed.

III. EVIDENCE
1. Proof of Representation -
1648748084925.png


2. Evidence In Regard to Defense 2 -
1648748205459.png
1648748406876.png
1648748435090.png
1648748476896.png
1648748533192.png


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

DATED: This 31st day of March 2022
 

Attachments

  • 1648748492134.png
    1648748492134.png
    1.4 MB · Views: 106
  • 1648747989790.png
    1648747989790.png
    11.4 KB · Views: 95
The answer to complaint is noted, the complainant may now present their opening statement.
 
48 Hour extension granted
 
Time has now elapsed.
 
72 hour extension granted.
 
Time has elapsed.
 
The defendant has 48 hours to return to the court otherwise the case will be dismissed.
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Olisaurus123 (Lovely Law Firm Representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Walmart co.
Defendant

OPENING STATEMENT
It will be shown that Judge nnmc erred when he:
- found that it was clear the plot should not be accessed
- found that no offer was made
- found that fraud occurred, since this finding was based on the errors above
- ordered that our client and his co-defendant in the original lawsuit were each fined $16,745.15 in actual damages, despite the total actual damages being $16,745.15.

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 12th day of April 2022

proof..png
 
The defence will now present their opening statement.
 
Last edited:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OPENING STATEMENT​


Olisaurus123 (Lovely Law Firm Representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Walmart co.
Defendant

OPENING STATEMENT
- No business entity should conduct relations with clients in unprofessional environments: environments that would be considered unsafe for genuine work, policy, commerce, etc. This is not a fact to be disrupted, but rather it is a commonly respectable standard. So now I ask this of the plaintiff, what is their definition of such an “unprofessional environment?” Clearly, enormous blue and yellow walls that border the premise, empty windows that are not only see-through but walk-through, and holes in the roof large enough for the sun itself to fit through, are not a fit enough definition. Yet, I once again make note, that these aspects were fit enough for a building inspector to report the building as incomplete.

- As Walmart owned the chest shops previously mentioned, they would be the party presenting the offer to the offeree, the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff illegally trespassed, and used the chest shops without the permission of the owner; as one can see, my client made no offer to begin with. Perhaps if the building was open, the chest shops in themselves would then be seen as an offer; however, the building was not open, the building was not in a state to conduct business, and certainly not in a state to present an offer.

- Fraud is defined as, “a dishonest or illegal scheme of successfully obtaining or attempting to obtain something of value.” As the Judge ruled before, the illegal scheme that took place was trespassing on the property and unlawfully using the chest shops; this scheme then allowed the Plaintiff, “to obtain something of value,” in this case being cash.

- Whether or not the verdict made by the prior Judge is fair is now in the hands of you, your honors. Obviously, you know where both parties stand as of now, any reiteration would be a waste of the court’s time. However, the Defense will argue this point on one front and that is the amount they are asking for. They are asking for a total of $34,890.30 back, $17,445.15 for each of the original Defendants. The $17,445.15 is calculated from a few other prices: $700 went towards legal fees and emotional damage, $9,640.40 went towards the amount Olisaurus123 sold to the chest shops, $7,104.75 went towards the amount Montilou sold to the chest shops. If the original verdict is ruled just, but the relief is viewed as excessive or unjust, then instead of the full $34,890.30 being returned it should be the extra amount each Defendant had to pay. In other words, Olisaurus123 should only be given back $7,104.75 and Montilou should only be given back $9,640.40.

- Additionally, let it be known that the Plaintiff knows what they are doing. They know they are trespassing, they know that their actions are illegal; yet, they do not know how to stop harassing my client. Your honors, let it be known that the Plaintiff and their “associates” frequent the premise, in which they are banned, quite often. They can argue whatever they wish, but they know they are trespassing, many witnesses have seen them trespassing. Why do they continue to do it? It is in our belief that it is pure ignorance. Ignorance for not only my client but the law itself.

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 15th day of April 2022
 
Could both parties please nominate any witnesses that they wish to call forward in this trial. Please make it known to the court within 48 hours.
 
Your honors,

The Defense has no witnesses to call to the stand.

Thank you
 
If neither parties wish to bring about witnesses or any testimonials, we will proceed to closing statements, starting with the Plaintiff.
 
The Plaintiff has failed to respond for the third instance. The Plaintiff is hereby charged with contempt of court.

The Defendant may provide their closing statement prior to default judgement.
 
Your Honors,

The case before you, in our opinion, is a simple one. Two individuals, one of them being the Plaintiff, trespassed on private property, essentially bankrupted my client by illegally using chest shops on said private property, and walked away as if they didn't commit a crime. In this court, they made numerous claims against the original ruling of the case; yet, what did they prove? What significant arguments and thoughts have they brought to the table?

They tried to argue that they never trespassed, argue that the plot was accessible. Yet failed to elaborate in any way or form on how it was accessible. All they have done is continued to neglect the large indicators of an unfinished building: the huge blue and yellow wall (that did cover the whole building despite the Plaintiff's 50% claims), the empty windows, and the gaps in the roof. The indicators were so transpicuous, that a building inspector noticed these details and reported the building having a lack of progress; essentially, reporting that the building was not done. Additionally, where in the world of common sense do these details present a, "please, come on in," message? The answer is they don't. Throughout the case, I have reiterated these specific details of the building because they are obvious signs that the building is not open for business, obvious signs that the owner does not want people to enter. The SLATT Act does not require a sign or a message for such instances presented in this case. It only defines trespassing as, "[entering or being] in a place without the consent of the owner or management of the place." No respectable business owner wants to present their business in the aforementioned environment, the Plaintiff was not meant to enter the building they trespassed.

The rest of the case falls right into line. If they trespassed on the property, that means that the chest shops should have never been used and that they were used illegally. Fraud then obviously applies, as it once again is, “a dishonest or illegal scheme of successfully obtaining or attempting to obtain something of value." The only argument they have presented that has an ounce of merit, in our humble opinion, is that the Judge rewarded a larger relief than first asked for. In other words, the only argument with merit is the one detail of the case that my client has no control over. If, however, the court considers undoing such a decision by the Judge, we ask you to remember all the other details of this case. It is obvious they committed the crimes they were found guilty of, obvious that they trespassed and illegally used the chests. Therefore, it would be unreasonable to give them a penny extra than what they were, "overcharged," as that would take away from the original reward my client asked for.

Please do note that our intention is not to be inconsiderate or greedy, but to ensure that what is right and fair is what happens. My client nearly lost everything due to the actions of the Plaintiff; even better, they still are left to deal with their child-like behavior and ridiculousness. They have continued to trespass the property for some time, despite it being unfinished. Continued to trespass the property, despite being banned. Continued to be a nuisance to my client, despite being told off many times. We ask this esteemed court to hear all these details, note the Plaintiff's lackadaisical and juvenile behavior both in and out of the court, and rule in favor of the truth.

Thank you,
The Defense rests its case.
 
Thank you - the court will now recess to come to a decision.
 

Verdict

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff, Olisaurus123, claims that Defendant slandered them.
2. The Plaintiff, Olisaurus123, claims that Defendant has committed perjury.

II. DEFENDANTS POSITION
1. The Defence disputes claims of slander and perjury.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. The Supreme Court notes the decision of Walmart co. v. Olisaurus123 and Montilou [2022] FCR 13:

"1. In regards to allegations of trespassing and contract law violation, I concur with the plaintiff. The requirement of 2 warnings or a sign applies only to permission to legally initiate PvP against the trespasser. Even if PvP is not legally granted, trespassing can still occur by being in a place without the consent of the owners. Given the presence of a wall around the plot and the fact that the only entrance point was the roof, a reasonable person should conclude that they are not to enter and they are especially not to conduct trade there. As a result of the trespassing by defendants, there is no clear offer for any trade to occur, and thus there is no valid contract for trade."
Click to expand...
Remarks from Chief Justice xEndeavour
The Plaintiff has failed to prove anything beyond what was put to the Federal Court. Furthermore, the Plaintiff failed to appear before the court on three occasions.

I echo the Federal Court ruling in relation to the interpretation of the SLATT Act. The Plaintiff was present without the consent, express or implied, of the owner. The area was clearly blocked off and the plaintiff entered via non-conventional means. The requirement of warnings/signs are a prerequisite for castle law, not for the definition of trespassing.

I see no evidence of perjury having taken place.

Ruling: In favour of the Defendant
Click to expand...
Remarks from Justice JoeGamer
Did a violation of the SLATT act take place?
Under the SLATT act, Trespassing is defined as “To enter or be in a place without the consent of the owner or management of the place.” From this, I ask this question: Did the person in question have the consent of the plot owner or plot management to enter and be in said plot or area of a plot? Now when companies have an active business wherein they sell goods and/or services, it would be reasonable to assume that they would have the consent. However, this case provides a unique situation; while Walmart is a store, it appeared as though the store was not open to the public. Even as a store, the Walmart location was not open to the public. Looking at the photos, this building is very clearly marked as not open. The entire bottom half of the store is blocked by a blue and yellow five-block high wall. This is very clearly not open for public use. The idea that it was open simply baffles me. Just because something has a way of getting in does not make it legal. This building is very clearly marked closed by its use of a barrier around the building and the blocking of entrances. Olisaurus123 very clearly violated the SLATT act to access the chest shops in this building.

Does violation of the SLATT null sales that utilized Walmart Co. chest shops?
Absolutely. There was no offer by Walmart Co. to engage in any sort of exchange between itself and Olisaurus123. The fact is that Walmart Co. closed its doors to the public, and thereby its chest shops. Because Walmart Co. provided no intent of offer with Olisaurus123, so Olisaurus123 had no legal right to engage with Walmart Co. chest shops.

On the claim of Slander
I find no evidence throughout this case that Walmart Co. slandered the plaintiff.

On the claim of Perjury
I find no evidence that Walmart Co. has perjured itself in a court of law.

Ruling: In favour of the Defendant
Click to expand...
Remarks from Justice Wuutie
So first of all: should we overrule the verdict of the judge? My answer is no in the case presented in The Supreme Court.

In my professional opinion, the building as seen clearly in the pictures was not completed. Also, the wall was clearly visible if you took around the store. Even though they might have entered through a door, this does not mean the shop is open.

An example: If a store employee is cleaning in the shop after closing time with an open door, does a client have the right to enter? No, a store is still private property and the owner can decide if a person can enter on his property. An exclusion is for example the common area in an apartment building. Moving on the store owner did not agree to let him in, seen the shop did not open officially. Trespassing in this case is the right decision.

Slander: The Plaintiff did not prove that this affect his life in a negative way. As not proven we can't argue that slander has occurred. Perjury: The Plaintiff did not prove without reasonable doubt that the Defendant commit perjury. When this is not proven without any doubt, the Defendant is released from this allegation.

Ruling: In favour of the Defendant
Click to expand...
IV. DECISION
1. The Supreme Court hereby rules in favour of the Defendant (3-0), upholding the Federal Court's decision in Walmart co. v. Olisaurus123 and Montilou [2022] FCR 13.
2. The Supreme Court hereby orders that the Plaintiff pays the Defendant $3000 in legal fees.

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top