Lawsuit: Adjourned RoryyyMC v. pandaback123 [2023] DCR 30

Status
Not open for further replies.
Babysoga4real

Babysoga4real

Citizen
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Willow Resident
BabySoga
BabySoga
attorney
Joined
Aug 16, 2023
Messages
84
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


RoryyyMC (BabySoga representing)
Plaintiff

v.

pandaback123
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
On July 31st, 2023, The plaintiff and the defendant agreed that the plaintiff would give a loan of $10,000 and the defendant would have to pay back the plaintiff $13,000 by August 31st, 2023. According to the plaintiff, the defendant has already paid back $3,000 and they still owe $10,000

I. PARTIES
  1. RoryyyMC (Plaintiff)
  2. Pandaback123 (Defendant)
  3. xAntho_ny (Co Counsel to Plaintiff’s Attorney)

II. FACTS
1. On July 31st, 2023, the plaintiff and the defendant signed a contract agreeing that the plaintiff would give the defendant $10,000 and the defendant would have to pay back $13,000 by August 31st, 2023.
2. The defendant has already paid back $3,000 of the loan back to the plaintiff.
3. As of September 17th, 2023, the defendant still owes the plaintiff $10,000.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
  1. By not paying back the balance that the defendant still owes, the defendant is breaching the contract the defendant and the plaintiff both agreed on.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $10,000, the outstanding balance the defendant has to pay back
2. $1,500 in legal fees
3. $11,500 total

1694973047723.png

1694973060006.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 17th day of September 2023
 
View attachment 36839

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS
@pandaback123 is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Lex404 v. .Oubie033. 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.​
 
You're honor, we are aware that time is left but if the defendant does not appear we request a public defender in their place.
 
If the Defendant fails to appear for the remaining time then a Public Defender will be called.
 
@pandaback123 is hereby charged with Contempt of Court. The charge is to be dealt with appropriately by the Department of Justice with appropriate fines/jail time.

I am also requesting that @Bibsfi4a is to appoint a Public Defender to this case within 48 hours. The Court is in recess until then.

To also address the recent announcement given by Acting Chief Justice Matthew100x. I will be disregarding it given the law is still the law even if passed illegally and must be followed unless a lawsuit finds the Judicial Fix Act finds the Act unconstitutional. My statement will also be this short given this Court Case does not need a massive reason list.

In short, this case will continue as normal with a Public Defender being summoned.
 
Sir RelaxedGV i thank you for your work that you have done for the very short case
 
Your Honor, I have been assigned to this case. Please give me 48 hours to file an Answer to Complaint.
 
you are out of time sir
 
I am waiting for the judge to respond.
 
You're honor
@Babysoga4real requests your answer to the defense's extension.
 
Good day, counselors.

Because RelaxedGV has been relieved of his duties and Mask3D_WOLF has recused herself from this case, I will be presiding.

@zLost you have 48 hours from now to provide an Answer to Complaint or Motion to Dismiss.

I would also like to remind both parties not to speak out of turn without a proper Objection or Motion, or at least a message for the court.
 
zLost has failed to provide an Answer to Complaint within 48 hours.

I hereby charge zLost with Contempt of Court and order the Department of Justice to fine/jail him appropriately.

@zLost I will allow 24 more hours to post an Answer to Complaint on the basis that you are the Defendant's Public Defender and they should have a fair trial.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your honor, the public defender was given days to file an answer to complaint or a motion to dismiss. Therefore we would like a default judgment based on the information provided.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RULING ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Every citizen, including the Defendant of this case, has the right to legal counsel and a fair trial.

They did not pick their legal counsel, so a Public Defender was appointed.

As it was not the Defendant's choice to have a Public Defender, the Court will not punish the Defendant and remove their right to a fair trial due to the failures of their appointed counsel.

The Motion is  overruled.
 
You’re honor,

We request a motion to summary judgement
 
Does the Defense also agree to Summary Judgement?
 
The Defence would be willing to agree for a motion for summary judgement after opening statements.
 
Your Honor , the public defender has agreed as the represantation of sir, Pandaback123
 
Does the Plaintiff agree to Summary Judgement after Opening Statements?
 
Yes the Plaintiff does agree in full length of the Summary Judgment
 
your, honor give me 48hours to rethink this
 
the plaintiff rejects such a kind of an Opening Statement
 
You’re honor,

Sorry for the way my other partner worded it

If possible they rather not but if we are doing an opening statement I can type one up.
 
BabySoga, I understand that you are relatively new to DemocracyCraft and certainly new to the courts.

I'm going to ask you to re-read the Court Rules and Procedures, Motions guide, and Objections Guide.

Please refrain from speaking out of turn.

@zLost you still have about 22 hours to provide an Answer to Complaint.

It sounds like Summary Judgement has not been agreed upon.
 
Dartanman said:
BabySoga, I understand that you are relatively new to DemocracyCraft and certainly new to the courts.

I'm going to ask you to re-read the Court Rules and Procedures, Motions guide, and Objections Guide.

Please refrain from speaking out of turn.

@zLost you still have about 22 hours to provide an Answer to Complaint.

It sounds like Summary Judgement has not been agreed upon.
Click to expand...
You’re honor

We are willing to do an opening statement and a summary judgement
 
Anthony said:
You’re honor

We are willing to do an opening statement and a summary judgement
Click to expand...
Okay. We will wait for the Defense's Answer to Complaint, then proceed to Opening Statements, then have Summary Judgement.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

RoryyyMC (BabySoga representing)
Plaintiff

v.

pandaback123 (Represented by Public Defender zLost)
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defence disputes that on July 31st, 2023, the plaintiff and the defendant signed a contract agreeing that the plaintiff would give the defendant $10,000 and the defendant would have to pay back $13,000 by August 31st, 2023.
2. The Defence semi-disputes that the defendant has already paid back $3,000 of the loan back to the plaintiff as the Defence argues that while there was a loan, it was not legally enforceable.
3. The Defence disputes that as of September 17th, 2023, the defendant still owes the plaintiff $10,000.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Defence alleges the contract misses a fundamental element of a contract as according to the Foundation of Contract Law.
2. In the Foundation of Contract Law, it is said that: (I have bolded the relevant parts)
4 - What is a contract
(1) A contract is a legally binding agreement that is one over which you can sue or be sued to enforce.
(2) Contracts with non legally binding agreements are know as promises/gifts
(3) If an agreement is to be a contract there must be a certain essential criteria that must exist in order to create a contract.
(4) These are in order: Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, Capacity, Legality, Legal intent and Format.
(5) If any one of these criteria are absent from the arrangement it will not suffice and a contract, meaning it will not legally bind the two people together.

3. The Defence argues that the first criteria was not met, as it is stated in the Foundation of Contract Law:
6 - Offer
(1) A contract must begin with an offer, this is a unequivocal statement of terms on which you are prepared to do business
(2) It cannot be vague or ambiguous

4. The contract in question states that the Defendant must pay back the Plaintiff 13,000$ by 31st august, but does not specify the year, thus leaving room for interpretation, meaning that the offer is not ambiguous, and as one of the essential criteria is not met, the contract is null.

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 4th day of October 2023
 
Your Honor, I believe that summary judgement is no longer possible as not all facts have been agreed on by the Plaintiff and Defence.
 
There is much precedent that Summary Judgement can still occur as long as both parties agree on  what happened, but only disagree on legal interpretation.

The Plaintiff now has 48 hours to present their Opening Statement.
 
RoryyyMC (BabySoga representing)
Plaintiff

v.

pandaback123 (Represented by Public Defender zLost)
Defendant
I. ANSWER TO antiCOMPLAINT
1. The Defence disputes that on July 31st, 2023, the plaintiff and the defendant signed a contract agreeing that the plaintiff would give the defendant $10,000 and the defendant would have to pay back $13,000 by August 31st, 2023.
2. The Defence semi-disputes that the defendant has already paid back $3,000 of the loan back to the plaintiff as the Defence argues that while there was a loan, it was legally enforceable because of the loaned money your client said if he doesn´t pay mine can sue.
3. The Defence disputes that as of September 17th, 2023, the defendant still owes the plaintiff $10,000.
II. justifing
1. The Defence alleges the contract misses a fundamental element of a contract as according to the Foundation of Contract Law if so please say below the redmont law does not say anthing i believe
2. In the Foundation of Contract Law, it is said that: (I have bolded the relevant parts)
4 - What is a contract
(1) A contract is a legally binding agreement that is one over which you can sue or be sued to enforce.
(2) Contracts with non legally binding agreements are know as promises/gifts these don´t accure
(3) If an agreement is to be a contract there must be a certain essential criteria that must exist in order to create a contract. YOUR CLIENT AGREED THE JUGDE CAN SEE THE PROOF YOUR HONOR THIS SIR IS MAKING UNJUSTIEFING DECIOSENS . .
(4) These are in order: Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, Capacity, Legality, Legal intent and Format your client signed the contract not my client wrote it and yours agreed.
(5) If any one of these criteria are absent from the arrangement it will not suffice and a contract, meaning it will not legally bind the two people together. THEY AREN´T binded we don´t need to say it was a contract it is a book withg a agreement inside your own statement you also said the year 2023
file:///C:/Users/rubyr/OneDrive/Pictures/Screenshots/Screenshot%202023-10-04%20145337.png

3. The Defence argues that the first criteria was not met, as it is stated in the Foundation of Contract Law:
6 - Offer AND THIS OFFER WAS ACCEPTED
(1) A contract must begin with an offer, this is a unequivocal statement of terms on which you are prepared to do business. like i said it is not a cntract it is a book with agreed agreement where was siad that roryyymc csan then SUE
(2) It cannot be vague or ambiguous
4. The contract in question states that the Defendant must pay back the Plaintiff 13,000$ by 31st august, but does not specify the year, thus leaving room for interpretation, meaning that the offer is not ambiguous, and as one of the essential criteria is not met, the contract is null allthoug you said it your self up in your statement which means you agreed and have said the it and we both agree you said that

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 4th day of October 2023

by: Mises BabySoga
Your Honor please say The only righthous thing at this time GUILTY with all relives Done.
For Lawfull decisoin for the district court of redmont.
 
Whilst the filing lacks the typical formatting of an Opening Statement, I will allow it in the District Court.

The Defense now has 48 hours to provide their Opening Statement.

After that, we will move on to Summary Judgement.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

1. The Plaintiff argues that my client agreed to the terms, meaning that it is legally enforceable, but this is simply not true as while it may meet acceptance criteria, if it doesn't meet all the other criteria, it is not legally enforceable nor a contract.
2. The Plaintiff has admitted that it is not a contract but rather an agreed agreement, which are not legally enforceable, as they said:
i said it is not a cntract it is a book with agreed agreement where was siad that roryyymc csan then SUE
Thus, further strengthening our defence.

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 4th day of October 2023
 
Thank you to both parties for their timely responses. This court is now in recess until a verdict (summary judgement) is delivered.
 
Your honor how long shall that take
 
Babysoga4real said:
Your honor how long shall that take
Click to expand...
As long as it takes (typically within 72 hours).

Please do not speak out of turn without a proper Motion or Objection. Consider this your final warning.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO NOELLE PROSEQUI

We would like to drop this lawsuit as the Attorney is no longer interested in working on it.

DATED: This 4th day of October 2023
 
Anthony said:
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO NOELLE PROSEQUI

We would like to drop this lawsuit as the Attorney is no longer interested in working on it.

DATED: This 4th day of October 2023
Click to expand...
Does RoryyyMC wish to drop the lawsuit?
 

Verdict


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
RoryyyMC v. pandaback123 [2023] DCR 30

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. On July 31, 2023, the Plaintiff and Defendant signed a contract, entailing the Plaintiff to give a $10,000 loan to the Defendant. This contract also required the Defendant to pay back $13,000.
2. The Defendant has only paid back $3,000 and needs to pay back the remaining $10,000.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The Defendant did not sign a contract.
2. The so-called contract was not legally enforceable under the Foundation of Contract Law, since the Offer was ambiguous, because the date said “31st of august” without specifying a year.
3. The Defendant did pay back $3,000, but they didn’t have to.

III. COURT OPINION
1. It is true that the “31st of August” occurs every year.
2. Despite this, a reasonable person can reasonably assume that in the absence of a year or other identifier of which “31st of August” is being referred to, the next 31st of August would be the correct time.
3. Thus, the Court believes there was an Offer - an unequivocal statement of terms on which RoryyyMC was willing to do business with the Defendant.
4. However, an Offer is only one part of a Contract, and this Court has not seen any evidence in this case that suggests Acceptance.
5. In particular, no evidence was produced showing that the Defendant actually signed the contract. Yes, their name is on it, but anyone could have written that. The book would need to have been signed by the Defendant.
6. Thus, the contract is null and void.
7. Thus, according to Federal Court precedent (Lawsuit: Adjourned - Aezal v. Morgan Sheraton & Co. [2023] FCR 43), the contract’s actions must be reversed.

IV. VERDICT
The District Court hereby rules in favor of the Defendant.
The District Court declares the contract between RoryyyMC and pandaback123 null and void.

The District Court orders that $7,000 (the amount of the loan not paid back) be returned from the Defendant to the Plaintiff due to the contract being declared null and void. The Department of Justice can action this.

The District Court thanks all involved.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top