Lawsuit: Adjourned Walmart co. v. Olisaurus123 and Montilou [2022] FCR 13

Featured Businesses

Status
Not open for further replies.

PiOs67

Citizen
Justice Department
Redmont Bar Association
PiOs67
PiOs67
constable
Good evening your Honor,

Before I begin the questions, I would like to reiterate my perjury objection after reading again the "motion to dismiss" of defendant Montilou. With all the due respect, it is clearly stated by the defendant "Facts 3 and 4 don't have anything to do with me" (§3). However, you based your argumentation against perjury as follow "The perjury objection is overruled because the defendant Montilou only claimed that he was only directly involved in Fact One. This is different than Montilou claiming that he was not at all involved in Facts 2-5."
In fact, the defendant clearly stated that he was not involved in.

Then, I would like to oppose an objection of relevance against the summon of defendant Olisaurus as a witness. Considering that a council is an agent, he agrees and is authorized to act on behalf of another. The client is fully represented by its council, who is acting on his behalf. Defendant Olisaurus is actually speaking through his council magills, and don't have any interest to speak otherwise than through his agent. This point of law is uncertain and needs to be clearly decided.

Finally, I apologize but a warrant have been recently accepted. I will need to wait for the results of the investigations driven by the staff before beginning the questions to the witnesses.

Thank you
 

nnmc

Citizen
Deputy Speaker of the House
Representative
Redmont Bar Association
nnmc
nnmc
deputyspeaker
My ruling on your perjury objection still stands. Montilou is allowed to claim innocence in a case against him, especially given the screenshots attached to Facts 3 and 4 do not show his name at all. I cannot find Montilou guilty of perjury for trying to defend himself and claim innocence; that would ruin the point of the court system.

Precedent is clear that while Olisaurus may not be called as witness by an opposing lawyer, his own lawyer may choose to call him to testify. Your objection against Olisaurus being a witness is overruled.

Please provide your questions to the witnesses as soon as possible after that warrant is carried out.
 

PiOs67

Citizen
Justice Department
Redmont Bar Association
PiOs67
PiOs67
constable
Your Honor, witnesses and opponent party,

First of all, I would like to thank all the summoned witnesses for the time they accepted to spend in front of this court.
I'll ask you to answer the following questions, and to base as much as possible your answers on evidences.

To all witnesses called by the plaintiff:
  1. Were Olisaurus123 and Montilou aware of DEC procedures to create a company? In particular, were them aware of the obligation to be registered to create a company in-game?
  2. Basing on the DEC ticket opened by cjcroft, can you assume that Olisaurus and Montilou lead these activities in a malicious way? Can you provide further evidences to this court?
  3. Did Olisaurus and Montilou used the same scheme on other businesses?
  4. Was Montilou directly involved in this activity?
  5. Did you noticed any impact of this activity on the reputation of Walmart Co.?
  6. Did you noticed through Olisaurus’ and Montilou’s behavior, a will to disband Walmart Co.?
  7. Some of you in the DEC ticket categorized this activity as corporate espionnage. On what are you basing this appreciation?
To Trent
  1. Have Walgreen been impacted by this activity?
  2. Can you assume that the defendants admitted that he drove this activity in a malicious way?
  3. Based on your discussion with Olisaurus, did the defendant want to act lawfully, or did he ask a way to gain the access to the chest shops?
To Mercuryellow:
  1. Considering the discussion you had with defendant Montilou, can you assume that he is involved in this activity? How?
  2. Can you assume that Montilou took the decision with Olisaurus to create the forum post?
To former secretary Thritystone, and present secretary xer called as experts:
  1. Based on your experience as DEC secretary, have you seen any similar activity to this case?
  2. If so, is this kind of behavior seen as fraud or breach of trademark? Is it prosecuted by DEC officers?
  3. Can this court admit the right to create companies in game without being officially registered by the DEC? Why?
Thank you
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Trentrick_Lamar

Citizen
Education & Commerce Department
Public Affairs Department
Donator
Trentrick_Lamar
Trentrick_Lamar
economist
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
  1. Were Olisaurus123 and Montilou aware of DEC procedures to create a company? In particular, were them aware of the obligation to be registered to create a company in-game?
If I recall correctly: at the time Olisaurus had Lemonade registered and, by virtue of this, he has to have been made aware of the procedure. There is no way for him to have registered his company otherwise. I cannot say the same of Montilou definitively.

2. Basing on the DEC ticket opened by cjcroft, can you assume that Olisaurus and Montilou lead these activities in a malicious way? Can you provide further evidences to this court?

I do believe that both were but can only definitely say so for Olisaurus due to a lack of evidence otherwise. This is on the basis that: (i) Olisaurus crawled over what was clearly a construction wall, whether or not there was a posted notice, in order to engage in mass sales after purchasing product off me; (ii) after engaging in mass sales Olisaurus re-created the company; (iii) after recreating the company Olisaurus messaged me asking whether or not he would have access to company chests; and (iv) Olisaurus, despite knowing he would not be able to retain the company, put up a company registration form in the DEC subforum out of what we can assume was spite for the DEC and in an attempt to cause trouble which led to the registration having to be forcibly removed due to his not removing the post himself.

The conclusion to draw is that Olisaurus purposefully targeted Walmart for their obsidian and enchantment table prices after noticing the contrast in prices between the two storefronts Walgreens and Walmart and it is likely that, after a certain point, he simply decided he would take the company and its assets. i.e. taking the company and its assets was secondary to mass selling and was an afterthought to the process.


3. Did Olisaurus and Montilou used the same scheme on other businesses?

Not to my knowledge.

4. Was Montilou directly involved in this activity?

Yes. He and Olisaurus both purchased obsidian from me and both sold to Walmart.

5. Did you noticed any impact of this activity on the reputation of Walmart Co.?

It, as a direct result, spurred needless speculation on the market value of Walmart based on a loss of company funds which consequently led to several individuals seeking to sell off Walmart shares upon news reaching the public. It must be remembered that company balance is hardly what makes up the vast majority of a company's value so a loss in company funds would cause a fairly small loss in market value. This, by the very nature of the market, would inevitably lead to actual losses on behalf of Walmart despite their market value having not been affected--if at all, negligibly--by this series of events.

6. Did you noticed through Olisaurus’ and Montilou’s behavior, a will to disband Walmart Co.?

Through the fact that Olisaurus was bragging about the bankruptcy of Walmart I believe that at least one of them had a will to do this. What I am noticing, if I am going to be frank, is that Montilou was a lot smarter about this than Oli was.


7. Some of you in the DEC ticket categorized this activity as corporate espionnage. On what are you basing this appreciation?

I refuse to call it that. The definition of corporate espionage is as follows:

"Any parties participating in, or accessory to the gathering, infiltration, or compromise of any sensitive company information that has not already been released to the public under the instruction of the company's controlling interest."

No company information was released to the public. I would say it is more akin to fraud due to it being dishonest for them to say they were unaware of the wall having been put there for construction and they most certainly obtained something of value as a result. You could even make a frivolous argument that this was market manipulation by virtue of that law's definition:

"Any act to artificially inflate or deflate the value of a company or stock for personal gain."

They sought to deflate the value of Walmart through the mass selling of obsidian and enchantment tables in order to financially gain off their loss.

QUESTIONS FOR ME:
  1. Have Walgreen been impacted by this activity?
No. They have not targeted Walgreens because it is difficult to find things you can profit on by selling to me on the basis that I basically am the server's wholesaler.

2. Can you assume that the defendants admitted that he drove this activity in a malicious way?\
Without a shadow of a doubt. Bragging about the activity in global chat is not a sign of innocence.

3. Based on your discussion with Olisaurus, did the defendant want to act lawfully, or did he ask a way to gain the access to the chest shops?
He was very clearly asking me if he has the legal right to take things from the chest shop as a result of having taken the company name.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mercuryellow

Citizen
Education & Commerce Department
Mercuryellow
Mercuryellow
economist
General Questions:
1.Were Olisaurus123 and Montilou aware of DEC procedures to create a company? In particular, were them aware of the obligation to be registered to create a company in-game?


Unsure about Montilou but Olisaurus must have been to have registered Lemonade, along with that, to my recollection he created the walmart forum post after he was reminded of this fact. Which I take to be maliciously attempting to take over the company.

2. Basing on the DEC ticket opened by cjcroft, can you assume that Olisaurus and Montilou lead these activities in a malicious way? Can you provide further evidences to this court?

I'd say there are a few parts to this. (a) Trespassing in the store and selling items, which they both definitely did, even if there were holes in the construction wall or the roof, trespassing is trespassing. (b) the remaking of the company in game and on forums, I thought this was purely a part of Olisaurus since the post and company was made by them, however I spoke to Montilou and I do believe the recreation in game involved both parties, however the forum post was caused by Olisaurus (see screenshot 1). I believe this to be malicious, especially on Olisaurus' part, due to how he asked trent and opened a ticket asking about information, and still did it. Montilou also was under the impression that cj had some personal vendetta against the two of them, I don't know what that is about but I believe that could be related to them targeting walmart this time. (see screenshot 2)


3. Did Olisaurus and Montilou used the same scheme on other businesses?

Not to my knowledge

4. Was Montilou directly involved in this activity?

I addressed this in previous questions, in the tresspassing, disbanding and recreation of the company in game? Yes, in the forum post? No

5. Did you noticed any impact of this activity on the reputation of Walmart Co.?

I personally didn't, however I don't tend to hang around in the discord or in game too much, so I do tend to miss things.

6. Did you noticed through Olisaurus’ and Montilou’s behavior, a will to disband Walmart Co.?

I believe so, as Oli was publicly stating how he disbanded it, in my opinion if they thought 'oh I shouldn't have done that' they, mainly Olisaurus, wouldn't have been publicly saying that he had done.


7. Some of you in the DEC ticket categorized this activity as corporate espionnage. On what are you basing this appreciation?

I did not say that, nor do I think that, I don't believe recreating the company in game, legally or not, would've given either of them access to information about the existing company.


Questions for me:

1. Considering the discussion you had with defendant Montilou, can you assume that he is involved in this activity? How?

I believe I have addressed this in previous questions. Prior to my discussion with him I thought he wasn't really involved at all really besides selling items in the closed store, however while addressing the recreation of the company, he uses the word 'we', which solidifies that he was involved in more than I thought.

2. Can you assume that Montilou took the decision with Olisaurus to create the forum post?

I don't think so personally, mainly because during my discussion with Montilou, he seemed to find it just as bad of an idea as we did. (see screenshots)
 

Attachments

  • SS 1.png
    SS 1.png
    124.5 KB · Views: 38
  • SS 2.png
    SS 2.png
    130.7 KB · Views: 37
Last edited by a moderator:

A__C

Citizen
Administrator
Speaker of the House
Representative
Justice Department
State Department
Education & Commerce Department
Public Affairs Department
Donator
A__C
A__C
speaker
1. Were Olisaurus123 and Montilou aware of DEC procedures to create a company? In particular, were them aware of the obligation to be registered to create a company in-game?
No. Olisaurus, at least, did not. Olisaurus made a new in-game company called Walmart and attempted to register it on the Business Portal after he realized he needed to do so. But then he retracted his business registration after learning of the fact that it had to be approved and could not be approved until the previously registered one was disbanded. If it helps, there is a screenshot of the business registration before it was deleted. I think I or someone else explained this which lead to Olisaurus retracting the registration.

2. Basing on the DEC ticket opened by cjcroft, can you assume that Olisaurus and Montilou lead these activities in a malicious way? Can you provide further evidences to this court?
I'd say it's possible, considering Olisaurus created a Walmart with the companies plugin in-game shortly after it was disbanded due to his own actions. He then proceeded to try and register it officially. It may have been to steal the Walmart brand name from the previous owner. However I would say the evidence isn't particularly strong.
Olisaurus did also wonder if he could access the company chestshops under the c:Walmart tag. It may have been an attempt to steal the items, though he was unable to access it.


3. Did Olisaurus and Montilou used the same scheme on other businesses?
Not that I'm aware of.

4. Was Montilou directly involved in this activity?
Not that I'm aware of.

5. Did you noticed any impact of this activity on the reputation of Walmart Co.?
Reputation, I do not know either. I know that there has been ads about "shop at c-380 while Walmart is down!" so while this might not be impacting the reputation, it may be impacting Walmart in other ways.

6. Did you noticed through Olisaurus’ and Montilou’s behavior, a will to disband Walmart Co.?
Referencing my answer to the second question, considering they (or at least one of them) planned on registering it with them as the owner(s), I would say that it does appear that they were trying to disband cjcroft's Walmart Co.


7. Some of you in the DEC ticket categorized this activity as corporate espionnage. On what are you basing this appreciation?
I did not mention anything about corporate espionage, so I will refrain from answering this question.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Magills0819

Citizen
Redmont Bar Association
Magills0819
Magills0819
klondike-res-ns
Objection: Speculation

We object to General Questions 1, 2 and 6 on the grounds of speculation. The Plaintiff is asking the witnesses to testify about they think the Defendants believe. That is for this Court to decide, based on the evidence. Witnesses can only testify about their own actions and thoughts, not the thoughts of others.

We also object to questions 2 and 3 for Trentrick Lamar on the same grounds.

Objection: Relevance

We object to General Question 1 on the grounds of relevance. In a similar vein to above, whether witnesses believe the Defendants committed a crime is not relevant, that is for this Court to decide.

We also object to all questions for the expert witnesses on the grounds of relevance. What these witnesses believe the law is, and what actions they believe this Court should take, regardless of their expertise, is not relevant, as this Court is to decide these issues.
 

PiOs67

Citizen
Justice Department
Redmont Bar Association
PiOs67
PiOs67
constable
ANSWER TO OBJECTION

Your Honor,
It seems that the defendant council waited for the answers of summoned witnesses, and 12 hours later, seeing that the witnesses disagreed with his point of view, opened his objection guide, and proposed all the possible objections to disturb both this case and witnesses, and prevent them for putting the spotlight on this complex issue.
Then, I would like to answer point after point to his ‘objections’.

Question 1: This question is explicitly based on what the witnesses saw as DEC officers at the moment of the facts. They are perfectly aware of the DEC registration procedure, and the fact that Olisaurus and Montilou are owning a company registered at the DEC.

Question 2: As DEC officers at the moment of the fact, the witnesses have been seized to give their opinion on this issue. The defendant can interpret this the way he wants, but calling members of the government for their experience and asking them to base their answer only on what they saw doesn’t seem to be really speculation.

Question 6: Actually, witnesses assisted to what happened and where totally immersed in this case. This question is only asking to witnesses to give their personal thoughts concerning theses facts they directly observed through an official request addressed to a government agency by ticket system.

Questions to Trentrick: I would like to remind the defendant that this witness have been directly contacted by the defendant Olisaurus. Moreover, as CEO of Walgreen Co., trent directly observed the defendants scheme, who bought Walgreen’s obsidian to reset them illegally to the plaintiff (see witness statement).

The Question 1 is fully relevant, since the defendant himself is arguing that he was totally not aware of the DEC registration procedure, which it could be interpreted as perjury since he already registered himself his business.

Moreover, I don’t know where the defendant is finding a question to witnesses asking if the defendant committed a crime, I would like to remind kindly the defendant that we are in a civil procedure initiated to engage his civil liability, not criminal one. Only questions to experts are simply asking them if this behavior is seen as a crime by DEC.

Concerning questions to expert, it is the pot calling the kettle black, to be frank. The defendant is constantly arguing from the beginning of this case about how the court should interpret the SLATT act. The relevance in this question is to bring to this affair another point of view. Not mine, not defendants’ one, but simply the point of view of experienced DEC officers. I would like also to remind the defendant that, in virtue of our constitution, the peoples of the Commonwealth of Redmont opted for a strong system of separation of power. This court should not, and will never be bound by an interpretation of the law given by a department officer.

Thank you.
 

Magills0819

Citizen
Redmont Bar Association
Magills0819
Magills0819
klondike-res-ns
Can I respond to that, Your Honour, given the accusations made by the Plaintiff?
 

nnmc

Citizen
Deputy Speaker of the House
Representative
Redmont Bar Association
nnmc
nnmc
deputyspeaker
It seems that the defendant council waited for the answers of summoned witnesses, and 12 hours later, seeing that the witnesses disagreed with his point of view, opened his objection guide, and proposed all the possible objections to disturb both this case and witnesses, and prevent them for putting the spotlight on this complex issue.
Then, I would like to answer point after point to his ‘objections’.
Be more respectful towards opposing counsel. Magills has a right to make objections as per the established rules of the court. Furthermore, you have also made several objections throughout the trial, and no opposing counsel launched a personal attack against you for that. Show that same respect back to them.
Can I respond to that, Your Honour, given the accusations made by the Plaintiff?
I assume you are wishing to respond to the plaintiff’s personal attacks. I have already dealt with that. As far as responding further on the objections, I see no need. You have already explained your objections once and PioS has already rebutted once. Neither of you are to make any further comment on these objections. I will respond to them later today.

Witnesses may continue to answer questions meanwhile, since no questions have yet been struck down.
 

nnmc

Citizen
Deputy Speaker of the House
Representative
Redmont Bar Association
nnmc
nnmc
deputyspeaker
Objection: Speculation

We object to General Questions 1, 2 and 6 on the grounds of speculation.
The speculation objection to questions 2 and 6 are sustained. The speculation objection to question 1 is overruled. Question 1 is asking the witnesses about something they would have seen in their capacity as DEC employees, and so I find this question allowable. On the other hand, questions 2 and 6 are asking the witnesses what they think the intent of the defendants was, and I see that as pure speculation.
We also object to questions 2 and 3 for Trentrick Lamar on the same grounds.
That objection is sustained because again it asks a witness about the intentions of someone else.
Objection: Relevance

We object to General Question 1 on the grounds of relevance. In a similar vein to above, whether witnesses believe the Defendants committed a crime is not relevant, that is for this Court to decide.

We also object to all questions for the expert witnesses on the grounds of relevance. What these witnesses believe the law is, and what actions they believe this Court should take, regardless of their expertise, is not relevant, as this Court is to decide these issues.
The relevance objections for Mercuryyellow's questions are sustained because the witness's thoughts on intentions are not relevant and are also speculative. All other relevance objections are overruled.
 

Teuntje1234567

Administrator
Administrator
Secretary
Construction & Transport Department
Environment & Recreation Department
Donator
Teuntje1234567
Teuntje1234567
environmentsec
  1. Were Olisaurus123 and Montilou aware of DEC procedures to create a company? In particular, were them aware of the obligation to be registered to create a company in-game?
    They messaged me asking if they could create a company with the name of a company that no longer exists, I responded with yes, however I also told them that they needed to apply with the company on the forums before creating them in game.
  2. Basing on the DEC ticket opened by cjcroft, can you assume that Olisaurus and Montilou lead these activities in a malicious way? Can you provide further evidences to this court?
    I saw they tried to register it officially on the forums, that might have been an attempt to fully "steal" the company. They also messaged me (and some others iirc) if they could take out items from the chestshops of Walmart, as they were able to as they created the Walmart company just after it got disbanded.
  3. Did Olisaurus and Montilou used the same scheme on other businesses?
    Not as far as I'm aware.

  4. Was Montilou directly involved in this activity?
    Not as far as I'm aware.
  5. Did you noticed any impact of this activity on the reputation of Walmart Co.?
    I've seen some ads saying "shop at c-380 wile Walmart is down", and Olisaurus saying "that was me!!^" after Cj posted an ad to say that walmart is currently down.
  6. Did you noticed through Olisaurus’ and Montilou’s behavior, a will to disband Walmart Co.?
    I guess so yes, Olisaurus tried to officially register Walmart after already creating the company in game. This leads me to believe that they indeed tried to disband the original Walmart Co.
  7. Some of you in the DEC ticket categorized this activity as corporate espionnage. On what are you basing this appreciation?
    Those were not my words, so I believe I can skip this question.


    Sorry for my late response, forgot to check up on this case.
 

nnmc

Citizen
Deputy Speaker of the House
Representative
Redmont Bar Association
nnmc
nnmc
deputyspeaker
@xerxesmc @Thatsushidude you are both held in contempt of court. I hereby order the Justice Department to issue the appropriate fine and/or jail time.

@PiOs67 Do you have any further questions to ask your witnesses? Please respond within 24 hours, but less than that would be ideal.
 

xerxesmc

Citizen
Donator
xerxesmc
xerxesmc
donator1
I apologize, I did not see the second page of questions. Below I have included my answers.

1. To the best of my knowledge, I have not witnessed someone try to take someone else’s company in game maliciously.
2. This is definitely fraudulent. All citizens of Hamilton know that you must apply for a company on the forum before creating it in game. By attempting to “buy out” a company without their consent is breaking the law.
3. The DEC gages company ownership by the forum. In game companies are only for economical purposes and not administration. For instance, anytime a company gets a new owner, the old owner will post that under the original company thread, because that is how we log all company activity. Oli did not even attempt to register Walmart on the forum (not that it would have been accepted as it already existed), but instead just created it in game, which holds no actual value other than trying to be sneaky and hoping he wouldn’t have been caught.
 

nnmc

Citizen
Deputy Speaker of the House
Representative
Redmont Bar Association
nnmc
nnmc
deputyspeaker
Given that 24 hours have elapsed since I asked if there was any further direct examination from the plaintiff, and the plaintiff has not responded, I will be moving on with this case.

@Montilou @Magills0819 you may now cross-examine the plaintiff’s 6 witnesses. Please post your questions within 24 hours, or state that you have no questions.
 

PiOs67

Citizen
Justice Department
Redmont Bar Association
PiOs67
PiOs67
constable
Your honor and opponent council,

Being convinced of the right to each citizen to have access to a fair trial, like stated in the constitution, being convinced of the quality of the justice and its judges, I regret to come to such an extremity.

However, considering, from the beginning of this trial, the lack of justification in answers to objections, the positions took by the presiding judge, the relations between the presiding judge, and defendant council magills, respectively former and present member of the same law firm, me and my client have good reasons to think that the fairness of this trial is not as qualitative as it is supposed to be.

Thus, by the application of our constitution, I hereby ask to presiding judge nnmc a motion to recuse.
The time wasted in this court case since the beginning of this trail is indecent, and nobody have interest to carry on while arguments are not confronted or just ignored. Justice is a venerable institution, where ideas are supposed to be confronted and discussed to find a solution. I do not have the feeling that it is the image given in this case to our fellow citizens. And this is not serving this Institution.
Because this case deserves it, because witnesses took their time to answer properly to the questions and need to be a minimum respected, because any litigant deserves it and has the right to understand on what basis an objection have been sustained or overruled.

Thank you.
 

nnmc

Citizen
Deputy Speaker of the House
Representative
Redmont Bar Association
nnmc
nnmc
deputyspeaker
I am declining the motion to recuse. I believe I have offered sufficient explanations on all of my rulings on objections. Furthermore, while Magills and I are former colleagues, that was several months ago and we did not work together often, due to time zone differences.
 

Magills0819

Citizen
Redmont Bar Association
Magills0819
Magills0819
klondike-res-ns
At this point we have a question for Trentrick Lamar:

You claim that my clients actions were “akin to fraud”. Were or were they not fraud, in your opinion?

And one for zerxesme:

Are your responses those that you have decided based on your experiences and this court case, or were they already decided when you responded to a ticket created by my client in relation to this matter?
 

PiOs67

Citizen
Justice Department
Redmont Bar Association
PiOs67
PiOs67
constable
I am declining the motion to recuse. I believe I have offered sufficient explanations on all of my rulings on objections. Furthermore, while Magills and I are former colleagues, that was several months ago and we did not work together often, due to time zone differences.
I hereby appeal this decision to the Chief Justice.
 

nnmc

Citizen
Deputy Speaker of the House
Representative
Redmont Bar Association
nnmc
nnmc
deputyspeaker
The Chief Justice will respond at his earliest convenience.

In the meantime, @xerxesmc and @Trentrick_Lamar have 24 hours to answer the questions asked.
 

xEndeavour

Owner
Owner
Former President
Representative
Construction & Transport Department
Donator
xEndeavour
xEndeavour
constructor
supreme-court-seal-png.8642

MOTION TO RECUSE FEDERAL COURT JUDGE NNMC
IN THE CASE OF WALMART CO. v OLISAURUS & MONTILOU

Having individually reviewed each decision made by Judge Nnmc, I am satisfied that the rulings handed down have been in accordance with the laws of the nation and procedures of this institution.

Reasons for Recusal
A Judge may be recused under the following circumstances:
● Interest in the subject matter, or relationship with someone who is interested in it
● Background or experience, such as the Judge’s prior work as a lawyer
● Personal knowledge about the parties, or the facts of the case
● Ex parte communications with lawyers, or non-lawyers
● Rulings, comments, or conduct

Colleagues
On the point of a perceived relationship between the Defendant and Judge Nnmc, I refer to Prodigium Partners at Law v _Austin27_ [2021] FCR 11, where Former Judge Matt_S0 provided the following verdict on a similar motion to dismiss:

The Judiciary has an obligation to be impartial, and individuals are nominated on the basis that they can perform their duties with impartiality and integrity. As such, the burden of proof falls to the accuser that a recuse is necessary, and any proof has to be overwhelming, given the severity of such an allegation. A successful motion to recuse is not to be discounted as something of negligible importance - a successful motion would demonstrate not only a Judge’s partiality within the matter but also incompetence in accepting the case when not necessary and damage trust in the Judiciary. I simply do not find the evidence before the Court to be of the required compelling nature to reach the standard required for such a motion.

Rulings
On the point of failing to provide sufficient justification to rulings throughout the case, I am satisfied that Judge Nnmc has provided the Plaintiff with satisfactory explanations. The justification was concise and to-the-point in each ruling. I would consider the justification free from any impropriety and in-line with the minimum expectations of a ruling response.

Remarks
Based on the current known facts of the case, as Chief Justice, I hereby overrule the motion to recuse Judge Nnmc from this case.

Thank you for your time.​
 

xerxesmc

Citizen
Donator
xerxesmc
xerxesmc
donator1
At this point we have a question for Trentrick Lamar:

You claim that my clients actions were “akin to fraud”. Were or were they not fraud, in your opinion?

And one for zerxesme:

Are your responses those that you have decided based on your experiences and this court case, or were they already decided when you responded to a ticket created by my client in relation to this matter?
This has always been the case of how the DEC operates since I joined 8+ months ago. My experiences have further cemented this. Please let me know if this answered your question(s) sufficiently.
 

Trentrick_Lamar

Citizen
Education & Commerce Department
Public Affairs Department
Donator
Trentrick_Lamar
Trentrick_Lamar
economist
At this point we have a question for Trentrick Lamar:

You claim that my clients actions were “akin to fraud”. Were or were they not fraud, in your opinion?

And one for zerxesme:

Are your responses those that you have decided based on your experiences and this court case, or were they already decided when you responded to a ticket created by my client in relation to this matter?
I chose my words purposefully. I meant quite literally "akin to fraud". There is nothing more to it than that. Keep this in mind later on in the case because I do not like to chop words and like to be literal and concise.
 

Magills0819

Citizen
Redmont Bar Association
Magills0819
Magills0819
klondike-res-ns
Yes, I have another two questions for xerxesmc based on his answer.

So do you contend that your testimony was not influenced by the discussion around my clients actions that you had with him in this ticket, (https://tickettool.xyz/direct?url=h...7/937419474414473226/transcript-dec-0221.html), which clearly frustrated you? Do you also contend that this did not cause you to have any bias against my client, who you seemed to believe wasted your time in that ticket?
 

xerxesmc

Citizen
Donator
xerxesmc
xerxesmc
donator1
No I do not have bias. At the end of the day, what he did was illegal and honestly disrespectful. If I witnessed that on either side I would come forward with it as I have in this case. Whether I was frustrated or not does not change the legality of the situation.
 

nnmc

Citizen
Deputy Speaker of the House
Representative
Redmont Bar Association
nnmc
nnmc
deputyspeaker
@Magills0819 If you have any follow-up questions, you may ask them. Otherwise, inform the court that there are no further questions.
 

nnmc

Citizen
Deputy Speaker of the House
Representative
Redmont Bar Association
nnmc
nnmc
deputyspeaker
@Montilou Given that you are a defendant as well, I will also allow you to direct examine these 2 witnesses if you wish. Please ask questions within 24 hours or say that you have none.
 

Magills0819

Citizen
Redmont Bar Association
Magills0819
Magills0819
klondike-res-ns
Questions for Olisaurus
  1. Were you ever sent a Cease and Desist letter concerning your use of the Walmart name and symbol?
  2. Were there any signs on the plot asking you not to enter, or to sell items to the chestshop?
  3. Did you intend to bankrupt or takeover Walmart at the time you sold items to the chest-shop?
  4. Did you take anything from the Walmart chests after you created the company in-game?

Given changes in the case since we called Vernicia as a witness, we no longer have any questions for them.
 

Olisaurus123

Citizen
Education & Commerce Department
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
Olisaurus123
Olisaurus123
economist
Questions for Olisaurus
  1. Were you ever sent a Cease and Desist letter concerning your use of the Walmart name and symbol?
  2. Were there any signs on the plot asking you not to enter, or to sell items to the chestshop?
  3. Did you intend to bankrupt or takeover Walmart at the time you sold items to the chest-shop?
  4. Did you take anything from the Walmart chests after you created the company in-game?

Given changes in the case since we called Vernicia as a witness, we no longer have any questions for them.
1. I was never sent a cease or desist letter, nor any message regarding the forum post registering for the company Walmart during the period it was up.

2. There were no signs at the time of entering, that said I'm not allowed to enter.

3. No, I simply used the chest shop because it was a fantastic deal compared to the price of the resources that it cost to make the item they were buying.

4. No, I did not take any items from any of the chests after the company was created in game.
 

nnmc

Citizen
Deputy Speaker of the House
Representative
Redmont Bar Association
nnmc
nnmc
deputyspeaker
@PiOs67 You have 24 hours from now to cross examine Olisaurus123 if you would wish to do so.
 

PiOs67

Citizen
Justice Department
Redmont Bar Association
PiOs67
PiOs67
constable
Thank you your Honor.

Questions to Olisaurus:
1. On what basis are you assuming that you were not aware of DEC procedures since you have been informed of this by xerxesmc? (see ticket extract bellow)
2. Basing on server logs provided by staff, why did you advertise the connected players to come to Walmart's plot and sell their stuff? (see logs bellow)

Line 4530: [12:18:37] [Craft Scheduler Thread - 1337 - VentureChat/INFO]: L | Trainee Doctor Olisaurus123 » come c-054
Line 8527: [12:17:30] [Server thread/INFO]: Olisaurus123 issued server command: /msg Vernicia come to c-054 I show you
Line 458774: [18:32:48] [Craft Scheduler Thread - 2797 - VentureChat/INFO]: G | Trainee Doctor Olisaurus123 » Milqy come c-054
Line 409101: [18:29:39] [Craft Scheduler Thread - 2795 - VentureChat/INFO]: G | Trainee Doctor Olisaurus123 » come to c-054, this is where I sold 16k worth of enchantment tables
Line 431168: [18:31:04] [Craft Scheduler Thread - 2789 - VentureChat/INFO]: G | Trainee Doctor Olisaurus123 » AB6A5SI u coming c-054
 

Attachments

  • 1645513916855.png
    1645513916855.png
    653.7 KB · Views: 43

Magills0819

Citizen
Redmont Bar Association
Magills0819
Magills0819
klondike-res-ns
Objection: Hearsay

Question 1 uses an out-of-court statement (by xerxesmc) used to prove the truth of the matter asserted (that our client was aware of DEC procedures) as it’s basis.

Objection: Improper Evidence

Question 2 uses text of the alleged logs, which may have been modified. The Plaintiff should have provided a screenshot of that information being provided by staff.
 

nnmc

Citizen
Deputy Speaker of the House
Representative
Redmont Bar Association
nnmc
nnmc
deputyspeaker
@PiOs67 if you wish to do so, you have 24 hours from now to rebut the objections.
 

PiOs67

Citizen
Justice Department
Redmont Bar Association
PiOs67
PiOs67
constable
Thank you your Honor,
I would like to rebute strongly these objections, for the following reasons:

Hearsay: This is not an out of context statement but a discussion between Olisaurus and DEC, in an official and government approved facility to solve issues concerning firms administration.
I would like to remind simply the definition of hearsay: When a witness testifies about a statement made by another person, and uses contents of the statement to prove a fact true or false.

1) Xerxes have been summoned as a witness but did not answer my first question, which should totally solve this issue: Were Olisaurus123 and Montilou aware of DEC procedures to create a company? In particular, were them aware of the obligation to be registered to create a company in-game? I propose thus to ask Xerxes again, to put the full light on this issue, and dissipate any unfounded doubts raised by defendant's council.

2) The summoned witness is testifying in this evidence about his own words, not about a statement made by another person.

3) This evidence have been provided by the witness himself.

Improper evidences:
These logs have been properly asked through a warrant procedure accepted by presiding judge nnmc, and obtained by staff and sergeant Tair0. Staff can testify the authenticity of these logs.

Thank you for your attention.
 

xerxesmc

Citizen
Donator
xerxesmc
xerxesmc
donator1
I’m not sure if I am supposed to reply to this so forgive me if I am not, but I wanted to reply to this question for the record.

Oli was aware of DEC procedures to create a company as he has registered one prior and in the acceptance message it states you will be given permissions in game after your approval. This shows that he knows the process in which one must take to create a company in game and with the DEC. I cannot speak for Montilou but as they are working together I presume they know as well, though can only speak on the facts I know.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Magills0819

Citizen
Redmont Bar Association
Magills0819
Magills0819
klondike-res-ns
Objection: Breach of Procedure

The witness has responded, after being dismissed, without direction from the Judge.

I would also like to take this opportunity to remind the Court that the Plaintiff had their chance to ask further questions of xerxesmc or remind them of unanswered questions, but did not respond within the timeframe.
 

nnmc

Citizen
Deputy Speaker of the House
Representative
Redmont Bar Association
nnmc
nnmc
deputyspeaker
Objection: Hearsay
This objection is overruled because xerxesmc has testified in this case as a witness regarding the statement at hand, so I do not believe that xerxesmc’s statement can fully be considered “out of court”
Objection: Improper Evidence
I will sustain this objection because I agree that a screenshot of logs would be better than text. @PiOs67 please edit the question to have a screenshot of logs instead of just text. This way, all parties are satisfied and the question will not be struck down.

Objection: Breach of Procedure
Sustained. I will not be offering a chance to rebut the objection, because it is highly beyond the norm for a witness to rebut an objection. The statement by xerxesmc will be struck from the record.
 

nnmc

Citizen
Deputy Speaker of the House
Representative
Redmont Bar Association
nnmc
nnmc
deputyspeaker
@Olisaurus123 please answer the questions once Pios67 provides the necessary screenshots of the logs.
 

PiOs67

Citizen
Justice Department
Redmont Bar Association
PiOs67
PiOs67
constable
The necessary have been done to provide the logs to the court as soon as possible.

Thank you for your patience
 

nnmc

Citizen
Deputy Speaker of the House
Representative
Redmont Bar Association
nnmc
nnmc
deputyspeaker
The necessary have been done
I’m sorry I don’t understand what you mean by this. All that is needed is for you to take a screenshot of staff/DOJ giving you the logs.
 

PiOs67

Citizen
Justice Department
Redmont Bar Association
PiOs67
PiOs67
constable
Your Honor,
My apologize, I did not understand this way. I did not personally asked for the logs, my client did. However, the staff confirmed the authenticity of these logs.
I hope this will be sufficient for the court.

Thank you.

Capture d’écran 2022-02-26 à 18.46.01.png
Capture d’écran 2022-02-26 à 18.46.35.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top