Lawsuit: Pending Steveshat v. Vanguard [2024] FCR 62

[Unseatedduke1]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION​

steveshat (Represented by Dragon Law)
Plaintiff

v.

Vanguard (Shareholder of Keystone Holdings)
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

steveshat is a man who was having a good time, and tried his luck at several casino games within Keystone Holdings. He deposited over $900k, and when making his last bet before running out of gambling money, he won big: winner winner chicken dinner. To be exact, he won over 1.8 million dollars, doubling what he invested. The casino didn't like this, however, and flat-out refused to award this payout when the plaintiff requested a withdrawal. The reason? Betting limits that should have been there but weren't as a result of the defendant's negligence. The defendant offered the plaintiff a disgusting $265k, a total insult considering this results in a huge net loss. It is time to teach businesses accountability. It is time to get justice for a wronged victim of contract breach.


I. PARTIES
1. steveshat (Plaintiff)
2. Keystone Holdings (Tortfeasor)
3. Vanguard (Shareholder of Keystone Holdings)

II. FACTS
1. On February 15th, 2024, steveshat deposited $969,009 into his Keystone Holdings gambling balance that could then be used to gamble, and could be withdrawn for cash at any time (Exhibit A).

2. On the same day, this money was gambled extensively with onlookers commenting on the gambling. To their shock, steveshat won $1,800,000.00 in a game of roulette (Exhibit B).

3. Keystone Holdings refused to pay out the winnings, offering to resolve the matter for a mere $265,000 under the reasoning that there was a max bet of $5,000 in place (Exhibits C and D).

4. Keystone Holdings had no posted policy of a max bet posted as of the 15th of February, 2024. Their gambling bot also did not have the feature of max betting properly configured, leading it to accept a higher bet (Exhibit E).

5. The plaintiff offered for the defendant to pay the 1.8 million dollars (and less in some offers) out overtime in a payment plan to protect their interests, but the defendant denied this request multiple times.

6. Keystone Holdings subsequently dissolved to avoid liability and distributed assets to its former shareholders (Exhibit F).

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The casino receives actual monetary bets in return for the expectation of that money returned on a win. This constitutes a contract under the Foundation of Contract Law as it satisfies all the necessary elements, while maybe not as explicitly as other contracts. Whether or not this legally stands, that expectation still exists and is represented by the casino's posting of odds on specific games. Representing those odds is also backing the outcome of the bet, whether a win or loss. To misrepresent these facts constitutes gambling fraud under the Commercial Standards Act. These odds were misrepresented when the casino refused to compensate the plaintiff his winnings, and thus is grounds for damages under the Legal Damages Act.

2. The two factors described in fact four combine sum up to negligence on Keystone Holdings and no reasonable assumption of any risk by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to his full earnings, and the excuse of a max bet holds no legal water.

3. Keystone Holdings dissolved, leaving liability for its actions to its shareholders. The plaintiff will be using discovery to find out how much liability is attributed to each shareholder and how much money should be clawed back from each. For now, the prayer for relief comprises a total amount of money owed collectively by all of the shareholders.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $1,800,000 in compensatory damages - the duty to mitigate was satisfied as described in fact five of this filing.

2. $50,000 in punitive damages for grossly and outrageously denying the plaintiff his winnings and having the audacity to strongarm and lowball him to a tremendous degree.

3. 5% of $1,800,000 is $90,000 and this would be the monthly interest steveshat would earn if he stored his winnings in banks that offer 5% interest such as Atreides, S-Capital, etc... Therefore, each day of not having this money loses the plaintiff $3,000 in opportunity costs. The plaintiff therefore requests $3,000 each day starting from the 16th of February 2024 until the 1.8 million dollars is finally paid to the plaintiff. At the time of this posting, that total is 51 days = $153,000.

4. $50,000 in loss of enjoyment in Redmont as $1,800,000 can buy a lot of things, things that the plaintiff cannot enjoy for as long as he is denied his winnings.

5. $50,000 in punitive damages for attempting to launder this money by dissolving and distributing it to shareholders / other parties.

6. $585,000 + 30% of the award of prayer for relief 3 in legal fees, awarded to Dragon Law Firm (a recent amendment to the Legal Damages Act increases legal fees to 30%).


V. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: Exhibit A

Spoiler: Exhibit B

Spoiler: Exhibit C

Spoiler: Exhibit D

Spoiler: Exhibit E

Spoiler: Exhibit F

VI. PRELIMINARY WITNESSES
1. steveshat
2. Stoppers

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 25th day of April 2024

 

[RelaxedGV]

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

@georgelordx is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Steveshat v. Vanguard.

Failure to appear within 72 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.​

 

[steveshat]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECUSE

The plaintiff move that Judge RelaxedGV is removed from this case as granted by the court in the initial appeal request.

Thank you

 

[RelaxedGV]

I will grant the Motion to Recuse and Judge SumoMC will be Presiding when they are available.

 

[SumoMC]

With the recusal of Justice Relaxed I will be taking over, deadlines are still in effect.

 

[Bibsfi4a]

Your honor, I am the defendant's lawyer. Requesting 24 hours extension to familiarize myself with the case, and get relevant proof and witnesses ready.

 

[SumoMC]

Your honor, I am the defendant's lawyer. Requesting 24 hours extension to familiarize myself with the case, and get relevant proof and witnesses ready.

Granted

 

[SumoMC]

Please provide proof of representation

 

[SumoMC]

@Bibsfi4a i need proof of representation within 12 hours or we will be moving on

 

[Bibsfi4a]

@Bibsfi4a i need proof of representation within 12 hours or we will be moving on

 

[Bibsfi4a]

@Bibsfi4a i need proof of representation within 12 hours or we will be moving on

Your honor, I am assuming, the 24 hours begins now. Couldn't really move ahead, as I forgot the proof of representation.

 

[SumoMC]

Your honor, I am assuming, the 24 hours begins now. Couldn't really move ahead, as I forgot the proof of representation.

No the 24 hours began when you asked for it, deadline remains in effect.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

They have missed the deadline.

 

[SumoMC]

They have missed the deadline.

Given the size of the case I will be allowing an additional 24 hours, however @Bibsfi4a is hereby held in contempt

 

[Avaneesh2008]

Your honor,

The defendant once again missed their deadline.

 

[SumoMC]

@Bibsfi4a is hereby held in contempt of court again, this is the last 24 Hours I will give before we move to default.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Your honor these extended deadlines are unprecedented. The defendant has missed deadline after deadline. We motion to reconsider this extension and ask for a summary judgment

 

[SumoMC]

Your honor these extended deadlines are unprecedented. The defendant has missed deadline after deadline. We motion to reconsider this extension and ask for a summary judgment

Motion to Reconsider is denied, this is a huge case and this court will act accordingly.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, as Chief Legal Officer of Discover / Vanguard Bank, we apologize for the delay. Counsel has been fired and me along with WhyDoesThisWork will be be taking over. We will issue a response to complaint as follows:

T (Yes this is intentional, before anyone calls me crazy there is logic to it that may be revealed later).


Now, we motion to dismiss. The case lacks a claim for the damages provided. It appears the plaintiff is putting 100% of the alleged liability for damages on the defendant when the defendant did not own 100% of Keystone Holdings. Under rule 5.5, damages must be backed with a claim and evidence and there is no evidence to support the amount of damages provided in this case. I urge the Court dismiss this case with prejudice for simply trying to milk my client out of absurd money over an issue my client has no involvement with and earned nothing out of. There are no claims nor evidence to suggest the defendant benefited off any "scam" if such claims are even true. Rule 5.5 is stringent as the Court has higher standards than frivolous cases with even more frivolous claims and prayers. Thank you.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

The defendant's response is ludicrous, Your Honor. Permit me to address the motion and refute it.

1. It is imperative to note that this case cannot be dismissed with a motion to dismiss, given its status as an appealed case.
2. We have clearly articulated our intention to utilize the discovery process to determine the extent of liability for each shareholder and the appropriate restitution. Denial of this motion is requested.

Your Honor, we respectfully petition for the removal of Alexander Love from this case due to an unequivocal Conflict of Interest, a violation of the SMLBA. Mr. Love's prior ownership of Dragon Law, coupled with his involvement in initiating the dismissed original lawsuit, endows him with an intimate understanding of every facet of this case. There exists a palpable risk that he could exploit privileged attorney-client information to our detriment. Allowing him to continue as the opposing party's legal representative would not only contravene the law but also undermine the fairness of these proceedings.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

The defendant's response is ludicrous, Your Honor. Permit me to address the motion and refute it.

1. It is imperative to note that this case cannot be dismissed with a motion to dismiss, given its status as an appealed case.
2. We have clearly articulated our intention to utilize the discovery process to determine the extent of liability for each shareholder and the appropriate restitution. Denial of this motion is requested.

Your Honor, we respectfully petition for the removal of Alexander Love from this case due to an unequivocal Conflict of Interest, a violation of the SMLBA. Mr. Love's prior ownership of Dragon Law, coupled with his involvement in initiating the dismissed original lawsuit, endows him with an intimate understanding of every facet of this case. There exists a palpable risk that he could exploit privileged attorney-client information to our detriment. Allowing him to continue as the opposing party's legal representative would not only contravene the law but also undermine the fairness of these proceedings.

Objection your honor breach of procedure. A response was not warranted.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your Honor, we respectfully petition for the removal of Alexander Love

Response, your honor?

 

[SumoMC]

Your honor, as Chief Legal Officer of Discover / Vanguard Bank, we apologize for the delay. Counsel has been fired and me along with WhyDoesThisWork will be be taking over. We will issue a response to complaint as follows:

T (Yes this is intentional, before anyone calls me crazy there is logic to it that may be revealed later).


Now, we motion to dismiss. The case lacks a claim for the damages provided. It appears the plaintiff is putting 100% of the alleged liability for damages on the defendant when the defendant did not own 100% of Keystone Holdings. Under rule 5.5, damages must be backed with a claim and evidence and there is no evidence to support the amount of damages provided in this case. I urge the Court dismiss this case with prejudice for simply trying to milk my client out of absurd money over an issue my client has no involvement with and earned nothing out of. There are no claims nor evidence to suggest the defendant benefited off any "scam" if such claims are even true. Rule 5.5 is stringent as the Court has higher standards than frivolous cases with even more frivolous claims and prayers. Thank you.

Motion to Dismiss is denied, the court accepted the appeal and will move forward with the case.

 

[SumoMC]

Defense has 24 hours to deliver their Answer to Complaint.

 

[SumoMC]

The defendant's response is ludicrous, Your Honor. Permit me to address the motion and refute it.

1. It is imperative to note that this case cannot be dismissed with a motion to dismiss, given its status as an appealed case.
2. We have clearly articulated our intention to utilize the discovery process to determine the extent of liability for each shareholder and the appropriate restitution. Denial of this motion is requested.

Your Honor, we respectfully petition for the removal of Alexander Love from this case due to an unequivocal Conflict of Interest, a violation of the SMLBA. Mr. Love's prior ownership of Dragon Law, coupled with his involvement in initiating the dismissed original lawsuit, endows him with an intimate understanding of every facet of this case. There exists a palpable risk that he could exploit privileged attorney-client information to our detriment. Allowing him to continue as the opposing party's legal representative would not only contravene the law but also undermine the fairness of these proceedings.

Motion is denied, this is the defenses chosen council and in my opinion does not rise to the level of removal based on the SMLBA

 

[SumoMC]

Response, your honor?

Denied as the motion was also denied.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Motion is denied, this is the defenses chosen council and in my opinion does not rise to the level of removal based on the SMLBA

Your Honor, motion to reconsider,

The SMLBA states In the legal context, a conflict of interest is defined as the situation where the same legal counsel represents both the defense and the plaintiff simultaneously in the same case. Your honor, Mr. Love, wrote this entire case in the original complaint, which you can view here. Mr. Love worked with the plaintiff and was given privileged information about the case. He is now not representing him in the case and is representing the other side in the very same case Mr. Love appealed in the Supreme Court. See that here. This is the very foundation of a conflict of interest. Mr. Love represented the plaintiff in this case, lost, appealed the case, and now that it's refiled, Mr. Love is taking the other side?? This is beyond clear to be a COI, and this court should uphold not only the SMLBA that defines COI as an indictable criminal offense but also ethics. Of course, the defendant wants Mr. Love to represent them when he is the one who originally sued them in this SAME case.

 

[SumoMC]

Your Honor, motion to reconsider,

The SMLBA states In the legal context, a conflict of interest is defined as the situation where the same legal counsel represents both the defense and the plaintiff simultaneously in the same case. Your honor, Mr. Love, wrote this entire case in the original complaint, which you can view here. Mr. Love worked with the plaintiff and was given privileged information about the case. He is now not representing him in the case and is representing the other side in the very same case Mr. Love appealed in the Supreme Court. See that here. This is the very foundation of a conflict of interest. Mr. Love represented the plaintiff in this case, lost, appealed the case, and now that it's refiled, Mr. Love is taking the other side?? This is beyond clear to be a COI, and this court should uphold not only the SMLBA that defines COI as an indictable criminal offense but also ethics. Of course, the defendant wants Mr. Love to represent them when he is the one who originally sued them in this SAME case.

Motion to Reconsider is DENIED, the law states that “(2) In the legal context, a conflict of interest is defined as the situation where the same legal counsel represents both the defense and the plaintiff simultaneously in the same case.” Mr. Love is not representing the Plaintiff and the defendant at the same time in the same case, he is only representing the defense.

All deadlines are still in effect.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Motion to Reconsider is DENIED, the law states that “(2) In the legal context, a conflict of interest is defined as the situation where the same legal counsel represents both the defense and the plaintiff simultaneously in the same case.” Mr. Love is not representing the Plaintiff and the defendant at the same time in the same case, he is only representing the defense.

All deadlines are still in effect.

Your honor, the answer to complaint was already submitted. I motion to move to discovery.

 

[SumoMC]

Your honor, the answer to complaint was already submitted. I motion to move to discovery.

A valid Answer to Complaint under Court Rule 3.2 has not been submitted, you have 12 Hours to submit a correct Answer to Complaint.

Rule 3.2 (Initial Answer Format Requirements)​

All answers, even Small Claims, must use the appropriate “Creating a Lawsuit” format and must have:

1. An affirmation of what facts are affirmed, denied, or non contested.
2. Either defenses under the law, defenses under facts, or a statement of defense that will develop throughout the course of discovery.