Lawsuit: Pending Steveshat v. wetc [2024] FCR 64

[Unseatedduke1]

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

steveshat (Represented by Dragon Law)
Plaintiff

v.

Wetc (Agent and 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. wetc (Agent and 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deposited $969,009 into his Keystone Holdings gambling balance that could then be used to gamble, and could be withdrawn for cash at any time (Exhibit A).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

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

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]

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

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.

 

[SumoMC]

@wetc is Hereby held in contempt. Court will be in recess pending a public defender.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Your Honor,

The Defendant has only just retained MikamiLaw LLC as their law firm ~2 hours ago.

We'd like to request a 24 hour extension to familiarize ourselves with the case and post a proper Answer to Complaint/ Motion to Dismiss.

Thank you for your time.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[SumoMC]

Your Honor,

The Defendant has only just retained MikamiLaw LLC as their law firm ~2 hours ago.

We'd like to request a 24 hour extension to familiarize ourselves with the case and post a proper Answer to Complaint/ Motion to Dismiss.

Thank you for your time.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

View attachment 43243

Granted

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Steveshat
Plaintiff

v.

wetc
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. We affirm the deposit was placed. We neither affirm or deny the balance could be withdrawn at any time.
2. We affirm the plaintiff's victory. We neither affirm or deny the details stated.
3. We affirm that the full winnings was refused due to the cap.
4. We dispute the configuration of the bot not being proper.
5. We dispute the offers, there is no evidence submitted of such, nor details.
6. We dispute that the company was dissolved in order to avoid liability.

II. DEFENCES
1. According to the Foundation of Contract Law Section 5, any contract must exist in the written format to be legally binding. As no contract was ever signed in between the Plaintiff and Keystone, there is no legal obligation to pay the sum.

2. The odds were represented correctly. The refusal to pay did not stem from the fact that steve had not won, it stemmed from the fact that the bet was illegitimate in the first place. The bot has malfunctioned at the time, and the Plaintiff has failed to prove otherwise as of this moment.

3. To state that Keystone dissolved to avoid paying it's debtors is an incorrect statement. The Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence upon the nature of Keystone's liquidation, and furthermore, liquidation as per the CSA requires debtors to be paid. This does not apply as steveshat is an illegitimate debtor due to a non-existent contract and illegitimate bet.

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 2nd day of May, 2024.

 

[SumoMC]

Court will now enter a 7 day discovery period