Lawsuit: Dismissed Admin23 v. The Exchange [2022] SCR 17

[Admin23]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Admin23
Plaintiff

v.

The Exchange
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

First, the Exchange has blatantly disregarded the Corporate Law and Shareholder Protections Act while supposedly doing their utmost job to uphold it. The Exchange has forced its customers to use a Discord bot that does not allow for custom prices and makes its own price based on something that is most definitely not supply and demand. Second, the Exchange has committed fraud twice by stating that it is illegal to allow for supply and demand to dictate prices (supply being the seller and demand being the buyer) and harmed the Plaintiff, Admin23, by doing so. Third, the Exchange has added insult to injury, quite literally and insulted and belittled the Plaintiff while violating the law.

I. PARTIES
1. Admin23 - Plaintiff
2. Someone (username in DC Discord is Aezal) - Employee of the Defendant
3. Nacholebraa - Owner of, and responsible party for, the Defendant
4. The Exchange - Defendant

II. FACTS
1. On September 6th, a private trader, magsymags, DMed the Plaintiff, Admin23, about purchasing Onyx Industries stocks at a price that would be agreeable to the buyer and seller (the very definition of supply and demand). The Plaintiff, Admin23, responded that the price is $3,000 for the 8 stocks.

2. On the same day, the Plaintiff opened a ticket in the Exchange Discord showing the conversation between magsymags and the Plaintiff.

3. Aezal (Discord name being “Someone”) stated that the price (including commission) for the stocks would be $3,158.94 and had no problem with the transaction.

4. magsymags sent $3,000 to Nacholebraa the day prior, September 5th. This money was deposited into an account with the Exchange. An account with the Exchange has the sole purpose of processing transactions with the Exchange.

5. Aezal continually belittled, facepalmed, cussed at, and laughed at the Plaintiff for “legit just using [the bot] wrong” when the Plaintiff did not want to use the bot because it did not allow for supply and demand to dictate the price of stocks.

6. Aezal states that he will “just manually do it”, meaning he will just manually edit the numbers. This shows that it is a possibility to edit the numbers of stocks an individual owns without requiring the bot to do it, meaning what the Plaintiff wanted to do was entirely possible. This means that the Terms of Service was edited at this very moment because of an agreement between Aezal, magsymags, and the Plaintiff. magsymags upheld his end of the bargain by providing $3,000 to Nacholebraa the day prior. This amount was in magsymags’ Exchange account. An account with the Exchange has the sole purpose of having ready funds to process transactions. The Exchange refused to accept that this amount was usable and demanded another $3,000 to process the transaction. Demanding another $3,000 to process a transaction when $3,000 was already deposited into magsymags’ Exchange account is tantamount to theft. There was no reason to demand another $3,000 when that amount of money was already in his account. As the Defendant has stated in their motion to dismiss in the previous court case that:

“The Exchange (TE) is a privately owned and operated securities exchange. TE states within its terms and services (TOS) that services can be canceled at any time with or without notice.”

The Exchange is well within its rights to change the terms at any time and that is perfectly fine. However, what the Exchange cannot do is vary the Terms of Service via an agreement and then steal $3,000, and then vary the terms again to cover up stealing the $3,000 (by closing the ticket and cancelling the service agreed to by Aezal).

7. Aezal states:

“Custom prices where never (supposed to be) supported. Ya’ll cant just say ‘ok im gonna give u my shares at a discount.’ Aint how stocks work.”

The Plaintiff replies that they are his stocks that he can sell at his own price and there is nothing wrong with that and says: “If two people agree on a price, the transaction goes through.”

The Plaintiff’s position is proven correct with a quick reading of the the Corporate Law and Shareholder Protection Act 4(3). If a buyer and seller agree on a price, that is a price dictated by supply and demand and must be allowed. Any deviation from that is illegal.

8. Aezal then explains that it is illegal for the Exchange to sell stocks at a custom price by saying:

“It’s actually illegal for us to allow you to sell stocks at a custom price.”

This is an odd statement given the willingness of Aezal to do so in paragraph 6 above. This is a direct contradiction of a previous statement, so either Aezal was willing to violate the law very readily previously, or this statement is a lie, and would constitute fraud, as defined under the Crackdown on White-Collar Crime Act as:

”an intentional or reckless misrepresentation or omission of an important fact, especially a material one, to a victim who justifiably relies on that misrepresentation; and the victim party or entity suffered actual, quantifiable injury or damages as a result of the misrepresentation or omission.”

That quantifiable injury inflicted upon the Plaintiff being the lack of a sale of 8 Onyx Industries stocks for $3,000.

9. The Plaintiff pushes to get the manual transfer of stocks over to magsymags as Aezal previously explicitly stated that it was possible. Aezal then cusses at the Plaintiff and for no reason.

10. After the explanation of the situation by the Plaintiff to Nacholebraa, Aezal states that the total price of the 8 Onyx Industries stocks is $2,871.78 and that the commission is $287.17. That commission is 10% of the total sale price of stocks. $158.94 is most definitely not 10% of the stock price of $3,000. This shows a wild discrepancy and inconsistency between commission amounts. This 10% commission is confirmed in another conversation between Aladeen and Aezal. Aezal lied to the Plaintiff about the amount of commission that should be paid. The Plaintiff disagreed with the price of the stocks as that price ($2,871.78) was not agreed upon by magsymags and the Plaintiff.

11. Nacholebraa states:

“In accordance with the CLA The Exchange is able to support a customer made price for the stocks as it would be in violation of Federal Law and we do not do that sort of thing around here. … I attached the screenshot of the act of congress in specific that references our inability to make custom prices.”

It seems that the Exchange does indeed “do that sort of thing around here.”

Nacholebraa’s statement makes no sense as he says:

“The Exchange is able to support a customer made price for the stocks…” but then states that would violate federal law.

The law that “does not allow the Exchange to create a custom price” is the Corporate Law and Shareholder Protections Act. Specifically, Paragraph 4(3), which states:

“(3) Securities Exchanges will be prohibited from calculating the market prices of shares in Public Companies using any factors other than the market supply of and demand for said shares. They will be responsible for updating these prices without requiring further input from the companies of which the shares grant ownership in.
(a) Securities Exchanges must provide consistent updates to the market prices of company shares. Each company listed on an exchange must have its stock price updated at least once every 30 days.
(b) Legal entities holding more than 20% of the stock in any public company must report their holdings to the Department of Education and Commerce.”

Nowhere does it say that the Exchange cannot transfer stocks from one person to another with both party’s approval. It does not say that two individuals cannot create a price that is agreeable to both of them for a stock and then have the Exchange transfer it by showing consent from both parties. The law simply states that the Exchange may not create a price for a stock that is anything other than what is dictated by supply and demand. However this also has been violated. The Discord bot that the Exchange employs uses a price for stocks that is dictated by the Exchange, not the market. This is a violation of the Corporate Law and Shareholder Protections Act.

12. Nacholebraa states that it was the Plaintiff who was being disrespectful to Aezal when the Plaintiff was reacting to Aezal’s demeaning behavior. This was Nacholebraa’s basis to arbitrarily close down a ticket requesting a perfectly legal sale of stocks and forced the sale to be done through the bot which is not what either magsymags or the Plaintiff had wanted.

13. The Exchange uses a Discord bot that uses arbitrary prices for stocks and does not allow for deviation in the price to match what people are actually willing to buy or sell for. This means that the Exchange does not use supply and demand to determine the price of stocks. The Exchange dictates the price of stocks to people.

14. By closing the ticket and editing the Terms of Service again, the Exchange forced the Plaintiff and magsymags to use the Discord bot that forces arbitrary and illegal prices on customers.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Exchange has violated the law that they have stated on multiple occasions they are attempting to abide by — the Corporate Law and Shareholder Protections Act. The applicable part of this law being:

“Securities Exchanges will be prohibited from calculating the market prices of shares in Public Companies using any factors other than the market supply of and demand for said shares. They will be responsible for updating these prices without requiring further input from the companies of which the shares grant ownership in.”

The Exchange has refused to process the transaction between the Plaintiff and magsymags and forced both the Plaintiff and magsymags to use the Discord bot. This bot forces people to use an arbitrary price. This price is not variable. That means that people cannot buy and sell things at a price that the market deems fair. If a buyer (demand) and a seller (supply) agree on a price, that is what the market deems fair and that transaction must be processed as deemed by the law quoted above. The Exchange refused to do this.

2. The Exchange lying to the Plaintiff three times.

First was that it was illegal for the sale with custom prices to be facilitated.

Second was that the commission was $158.94 and not $300 (10% of $3,000), which was later changed to 10% (287.17) when the total price of stocks were lowered by Aezal from the agreed upon $3,000 down to $2871.76.

Third was the reiteration of the fact that the Exchange supposedly cannot facilitate the transfer of stocks at a custom price agreed to by two parties because it is illegal.

2. The forcing a transfer of stocks by the Exchange at a different price than was determined by supply and demand. It was already explicitly stated that the transfer was possible by Aezal before he deemed that it was illegal, when, in fact, it was and is most definitely not illegal.

3. The insults and belittlement by the Exchange.

4. The three previous claims caused the Plaintiff to lose out on a deal that was already agreed upon.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $30,000 in punitive damages from the Exchange (or Nacholebraa as he is the owner of the Exchange)
2. A public and sincere apology from the Exchange to all customers of the Exchange for breaking the law and damaging its customers.

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2

Exhibit 3

Exhibit 4

Exhibit 5

Exhibit 6

Exhibit 7

Exhibit 8

Exhibit 9

Exhibit 10

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 22nd day of September 2022

 

[Admin23]

There are more attachments than in just the original filing and they will be submitted in this post (and an additional one) as the original one has met the 10 image limit.


Exhibit 11

Exhibit 12 (Red text is added by me to signify what the link is for)

Exhibit 13

Exhibit 14

Exhibit 15 (a screenshot of the same law shown in Exhibit 14)

Exhibit 16

Exhibit 17

Exhibit 18 (proof of the commission being 10%, weeks before the Plaintiff’s was opened)

Exhibit 19

Exhibit 20

 

[Admin23]

Exhibit 21

 

[Admin23]

I accidentally submitted the incorrect draft. It seems my final draft was deleted. With the Court’s permission, I would like to take the time to edit the complaint before the deadline of 3:34 AM EST September 24th that Wuutie has given to file this complaint.

 

[Admin23]

I have submitted the correct draft.

 

[JoeGamer]

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

The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of the Admin23 v. The Exchange. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​

 

[JoeGamer]

Mr. Admin23, for the sake of neatness in the Supreme Court, I request that you downsize your screenshots. They are absurdly large and unprofessional. This could be done with Imgur, Google Docs, or simply downsizing them in the original post.

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Admin23
Plaintiff

v.

The Exchange (Represented by DouCo Law Partners)
Defendant

Spoiler: Proof

Your honor,

It brings me great joy to once again be practicing law in the great nation of Redmont, and I am grateful to my client for this opportunity. However I do wish it were under better circumstances, you see this case is nothing short of frivolous and frankly in my, humble, opinion not worthy of this court's valuable time and as such I will try to keep it as brief as I can.

My client is deeply upset that this charade by the Plaintiff is to be dragged out once more after the matter had been settled. The stress of having to respond to these events has been heavy on my client, who already has many responsibilities outside of running a business - including sitting on this Supreme Court. As such my client has come to me and my law firm seeking relief from this burden - relief that does come with a cost that the defense hopes the court will compel the Plaintiff to carry.

The defense could argue a Motion to Dismiss on a great number of points in the “argument” above, however instead the defense would like to save everyone’s time by instead submitting a Motion based on perjury committed by the Plaintiff. In the consideration of this attempt to wrap this up quickly the defense would like the opportunity to make a further Motion to Dismiss, which would address the whole body of text written by the Plaintiff, in the event that the Perjury committed by the Plaintiff is not considered enough to throw this case out.

MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. The Defense would like to focus on the argument in ‘FACTS. 6.’ Quote:

Spoiler: FACTS. 6

6. Aezal states that he will “just manually do it”, meaning he will just manually edit the numbers. This shows that it is a possibility to edit the numbers of stocks an individual owns without requiring the bot to do it, meaning what the Plaintiff wanted to do was entirely possible. This means that the Terms of Service was edited at this very moment because of an agreement between Aezal, magsymags, and the Plaintiff. magsymags upheld his end of the bargain by providing $3,000 to Nacholebraa the day prior. This amount was in magsymags’ Exchange account. An account with the Exchange has the sole purpose of having ready funds to process transactions. The Exchange refused to accept that this amount was usable and demanded another $3,000 to process the transaction. Demanding another $3,000 to process a transaction when $3,000 was already deposited into magsymags’ Exchange account is tantamount to theft. There was no reason to demand another $3,000 when that amount of money was already in his account. As the Defendant has stated in their motion to dismiss in the previous court case that:

“The Exchange (TE) is a privately owned and operated securities exchange. TE states within its terms and services (TOS) that services can be canceled at any time with or without notice.”

The Exchange is well within its rights to change the terms at any time and that is perfectly fine. However, what the Exchange cannot do is vary the Terms of Service via an agreement and then steal $3,000, and then vary the terms again to cover up stealing the $3,000 (by closing the ticket and cancelling the service agreed to by Aezal).

i) Your honor this is very simple, the Plaintiff has not read the Terms of Service but yet has decided to claim that it has been edited by my client regardless - talking about grasping at straws. In my first emboldened section you will see the Plaintiff claims that the Terms of Services were edited, now it is not clear to the Defense if the Plaintiff means it was physically edited or not however if the Plaintiff is claiming it was physically edited the Defense would argue that the Plaintiff has provided no evidence of these edits. Furthermore the Defense is able to provide evidence that it was not edited if the court will allow it. This flagrant lie is perjury your honor, there were no edits. And if there were no edits, you must discredit.

Spoiler: EVIDENCE OF NO EDITS

ii) In the event that the Plaintiff instead means that it was somehow metaphorically edited, this is also a lie as the Terms of Service - which the Plaintiff so helpfully provides- makes no mention of the specifics of the exchange of shares except for stating “We may remove or modify any service at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice”. The Plaintiff provides no evidence for these so called edits, just states they happened - that’s my perjury alarm sounding. Once more, if there were no edits, you must discredit.

iii) In my second emboldened section the Plaintiff claims my client requested another $3,000 from magsymags. Now I have read, reread, rereread and frankly rerereread the provided evidence by the Plaintiff. This did not happen. This is a lie. I may be wrong here but this did not happen, my client did not ask for another $3,000 from magsymags, my client did ask for proof of the initial $3,000 but this does not equal what the Plaintiff has claimed. The Plaintiff has lied, because it sounds better to claim another $3,000 was requested. And a lie is perjury your honor.

iv) In my final emboldened section the Plaintiff says that the Exchange can ‘change’ the terms at any time - but what they cannot do is ‘vary’ them. Your honor, this is a circus act. If you look up the word ‘vary’ in the dictionary you will see the word ‘change’ as a synonym, they mean the same thing! The Plaintiff is trying to bend, twist and break the English Language in order to fabricate an argument. To try and twist the truth in this way constitutes perjury in my books.

v) In one final act of perjury your honor the Plaintiff claims the Defendant ‘stole’ $3,000! ‘Stole’, my goodness, what explosive language. Your honor, it's as clear as day magsymags claims they mistakenly transferred $3,000 to my client, which my client asks for proof of. If that’s theft then we better go arrest all the buskers and beggars in the city who were given money by someone else! But why stop there? Grandma gave you $10 for mowing her lawn, well kid I’m afraid it's juvie for you, you stole that $10 from a sweet old lady. Your honor, this is ridiculous. Once more in this tiny snippet of the whole argument the Plaintiff is lying about the facts of the case to try and make something out of nothing. Making something up is lying, lying is perjury.

There was no theft, there were no requests for another $3,000, and there were no edits. And if there were no edits, you must discredit.

2. And so the defense argues that as the Plaintiff has shown such to flirt with fiction so freely on some of the key facts of their case, nothing within this case can be taken to be truthful. The core elements outlined in this Motion are lies and so this entire case is a waste of everyone's time.

3. The defense would ask to add an extra stipulation to this motion that the Plaintiff should compensate my client for the $15,000 they have had to spend on legal fees, plus an extra $5,000 for their time in collecting evidence. Seeing as the Plaintiff thinks that $30,000 is a fair damages to ask for events based on fiction, the defense imagines they will have no issue with this charge.

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 September 2022

 

[Admin23]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
REBUTTAL TO MOTION TO DISMISS


Good afternoon, your Honor, opposing counsel.

Let’s look at what the opposing counsel has to say, paragraph by paragraph. However, before I get started, I would like to direct the Court’s attention to the fact that opposing counsel has decided to cherry pick a single part of the Plaintiff’s argument, and left a whole 13 other facts undisputed which means that the Defense has boxed itself into a fait accompli with nearly the entirety of the Plaintiff’s points.

I will give a response to each of the Defense’s points.


1(i)
“In my first emboldened section you will see the Plaintiff claims that the Terms of Services were edited, now it is not clear to the Defense if the Plaintiff means it was physically edited or not however if the Plaintiff is claiming it was physically edited the Defense would argue that the Plaintiff has provided no evidence of these edits. Furthermore the Defense is able to provide evidence that it was not edited if the court will allow it. This flagrant lie is perjury your honor, there were no edits. And if there were no edits, you must discredit.”

No, there was no edit of the TOS document, however as is stated in stated TOS document,

“We may remove or modify any service submitted at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice. Requests for service to be canceled or modified will be undertaken only at our discretion. We may terminate your access to all or any part of our services at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice.”

The service was modified, and thus the TOS was modified. The TOS is a foundational document in which the Exchange is able to expand upon without a direct edit of the TOS document itself.

“We may remove or modify any service submitted at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice.”

The above passage can include verbal agreements between staff and customers.


1(ii)
“In the event that the Plaintiff instead means that it was somehow metaphorically edited, this is also a lie as the Terms of Service makes no mention of the specifics of the exchange of shares except for stating ‘We may remove or modify any service at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice’. The Plaintiff provides no evidence for these so called edits, just states they happened…”

Yes, they did indeed just happened. If I can bring the Court’s attention to Exhibit 4, Aezal states, “you just need 3158.94 in your bal and we’ll sort it out from there”. That is an expansion of the Exchange’s services from solely the bot to a manual stock transfer by Aezal. That was an inclusion of the processing of the transaction into the services of the Exchange, and that means that that service then falls under a “service” within the TOS and thus, an edit occurred. An edit not in the physical sense but rather interpretation of the wording of it.


1(iii)
“In my second emboldened section the Plaintiff claims my client requested another $3,000 from magsymags. Now I have read, reread, rereread and frankly rerereread the provided evidence by the Plaintiff. This did not happen. This is a lie. I may be wrong here but this did not happen, my client did not ask for another $3,000 from magsymags, my client did ask for proof of the initial $3,000 but this does not equal what the Plaintiff has claimed. The Plaintiff has lied, because it sounds better to claim another $3,000 was requested. And a lie is perjury your honor.”

Exhibit 4 is where these additional funds were requested by Aezal. Exhibit 13 is the lack of acknowledgment of the fact that magsymags had $3,000 in his account. Furthermore, there wasn’t even an investigation into this claim made by magsymags that he had sent $3,000. This is either very poor accounting or a sleight of hand that Nacholebraa tried to pull.


1(iv)
“In my final emboldened section the Plaintiff says that the Exchange can ‘change’ the terms at any time - but what they cannot do is ‘vary’ them. Your honor, this is a circus act. If you look up the word ‘vary’ in the dictionary you will see the word ‘change’ as a synonym, they mean the same thing! The Plaintiff is trying to bend, twist and break the English Language in order to fabricate an argument. To try and twist the truth in this way constitutes perjury in my books.”

The two words, vary and change, were used interchangeably, as is appropriate. There is no argument of substance here as it is merely stating the obvious in that the Plaintiff used two words correctly.


1(v)
“In one final act of perjury your honor the Plaintiff claims the Defendant ‘stole’ $3,000! ‘Stole’, my goodness, what explosive language. Your honor, it's as clear as day magsymags claims they mistakenly transferred $3,000 to my client, which my client asks for proof of. If that’s theft then we better go arrest all the buskers and beggars in the city who were given money by someone else! But why stop there? Grandma gave you $10 for mowing her lawn, well kid I’m afraid it's juvie for you, you stole that $10 from a sweet old lady. Your honor, this is ridiculous. Once more in this tiny snippet of the whole argument the Plaintiff is lying about the facts of the case to try and make something out of nothing. Making something up is lying, lying is perjury.”

I’m not even sure exactly what to say here. First off, before I respond, I would just like to say that if opposing counsel is being paid an exorbitant amount of money to defend his client, he should find at least a decent analogy. A grandma paying a child $10 for mowing the lawn is not an adequate analogy to Nacholebraa being paid $3,000, and conveniently forgetting that he was paid that the day prior, and Aezal asking for the amount of money to be sent to Nacholebraa.

Magsymags did not mistakenly send $3,000 to Nacholebraa. He did so in a support ticket with the Exchange the day prior, on September 5th. That is not mistaken. That was deposited into magsymags’ Exchange account. The money in that account has the sole purpose of processing transactions, which both Aezal and Nacholebraa did not use. This is not a direct theft, but rather a theft of deceit. Magsymags did not know where his money had gone. He did not know it was in his account and was usable.

If you tell a toddler to put a dollar that they found in a jar and not tell them that they can get that money back whenever they want, they will think you just took their dollar, put it into the jar, and thus stole it.


2.
“And so the defense argues that as the Plaintiff has shown such to flirt with fiction so freely on some of the key facts of their case, nothing within this case can be taken to be truthful. The core elements outlined in this Motion are lies and so this entire case is a waste of everyone's time.”

The Defense may say that the Plaintiff is “shown to flirt with fiction” however let’s break this down one more time.

In the first paragraph that attempts to rebut one point in the complaint, opposing counsel is shown to not understand how the Defendant’s Terms of Service operates.

In the second paragraph, again, opposing counsel is shown to not understand the nuance of the Defendant’s TOS and how it operates.

In the third paragraph, opposing counsel seems to be incapable of reading a text conversation thoroughly. This is furthered by opposing counsel’s lack of thorough reading and understanding of the Defendant’s TOS.

In the fourth paragraph, opposing counsel excitedly jumps onto the Plaintiff’s use of synonyms in the proper way and says that the use of the English language in the correct way is a “circus act”. If that is the case, your Honor, I hope we are all clowns in that circus.

In the fifth paragraph, opposing counsel makes up this idea that Nacholebraa is somehow this child that mows the lawn of magsymags and the Plaintiff, and energetically insists that the logic tracks and makes sense. It does not.

All of this being the Defense’s response to one singular paragraph in the Plaintiff’s complaint. It didn’t even touch the 13 other facts posed by the Plaintiff. It seems that Nacholebraa is paying his attorney a lot of money for very little being done in the courtroom to further the Defense’s argument.


3.
“The defense would ask to add an extra stipulation to this motion that the Plaintiff should compensate my client for the $15,000 they have had to spend on legal fees, plus an extra $5,000 for their time in collecting evidence. Seeing as the Plaintiff thinks that $30,000 is a fair damages to ask for events based on fiction, the defense imagines they will have no issue with this charge.”

If the Defendant is willing to pay so many thousands of dollars for nothing being effectively disputed, that is on the Defendant to pay. Usually, an attorney is able to extract attorney’s fees from an opposing party if they win. So far, opposing counsel has done nothing to further his side to a victory. The cost incurred by opposing counsel should be kept with the Defendant.


Quite impressively, opposing counsel has found the most expensive, long winded way of saying nothing. Nothing has been disputed effectively. There have been multiple arguments of perjury thrown at the Plaintiff, however each and every one of those is due to opposing counsel’s lack of understanding of this case and is not due to any actual basis for perjury.


DATED: This 25th day of September, 2022.

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

Objection,

Breach of procedure your honor. Admin23 was not invited to submit a rebuttal.

DATED: This 27th day of September, 2022.

 

[Admin23]

In response to this objection, I cannot find anything which states this is a breach of procedure. Furthermore, in FCR 51, the Plaintiff submitted a response to the motion to dismiss without any prompting from the presiding judge. If it was an opening or closing statement, that would be a different issue. Those are clearly defined parts of the court process, unlike the rebuttal to a motion to dismiss.

In the many resources we have that would be able to shed light on this particular issue, each falls silent right when it would tell us about it. See the motions guide and court proceedings and rules.

All told, the requirement for a prompting by a presiding judge for a rebuttal for a motion to dismiss seems to be optional as this is a legal grey area.

Link to court case mentioned above:

Lawsuit: Adjourned - xstarpro v. Department of State [2022] FCR 51

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT CIVIL ACTION xstarpro Plaintiff v. Department of State Defendant COMPLAINT The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows: The Department of State, as established by the Modern Legal Board Act, is charged with the carrying out of...

www.democracycraft.net

 

[JoeGamer]

Objection sustained. It is not proper to provide a rebuttal to a motion to dismiss without approval from who is presiding. This is both parties warning. Future breach of procedure may result in contempt of court charges against either party.

The motion to dismiss is rejected

The plaintiff has 48 hours to provide their opening statement (September 30 at 12:01 PM Eastern Standard Time).

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Admin23
Plaintiff

v.

The Exchange (Represented by DouCo Law Partners)
Defendant

Your honor, this case is nothing more than an individual who was incapable of using a service correctly, lashing out due to the fact that they were incapable of using it. It has caused a lot of trouble for my client, who originally tried very hard to assist the Plaintiff as shown by the evidence provided.

On top of being incapable of using the services setup by my client, the Plaintiff is incapable of providing a professionally structured lawsuit. The Plaintiff has refused to resize the evidence provided despite the court order and furthermore has structured the text of the lawsuit in a way that jumps all over the place, referencing whole paragraphs in sweeping statements, with very little consideration to the individuals having to read it, thus making my role of navigating the information provided and the lawsuit as a whole very difficult - despite the fact that this is an open and shut case!

The Defense will try and wrap this up as quickly and painlessly as possible, furthermore the Defense would like to ask the court to highlight in their decision the unprofessionalism of the Plaintiff in this case and furthermore address the charges of Perjury we have highlighted.

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
In the interests of completely addressing the complaint outlined by the Plaintiff, and due to the large rambling blocks of text provided the Defense will break down and respond to each part of the case separately before drawing together its conclusions.

Spoiler: II. FACTS 1.

1. On September 6th, a private trader, magsymags, DMed the Plaintiff, Admin23, about purchasing Onyx Industries stocks at a price that would be agreeable to the buyer and seller (the very definition of supply and demand). The Plaintiff, Admin23, responded that the price is $3,000 for the 8 stocks.

1. The private messages between two individuals, the Plaintiff & magsymags, are of no consequence to the interactions between the Plaintiff and my client. The Plaintiff argues that as the 'Corporate Law and Shareholder Protections Act' mentions supply and demand the price can be determined by the buyer and seller. However the Plaintiff consistently forgets to mention the parts of this law which prove my client is in the right. The law does not require my client to calculate the price based on supply and demand, it specifically prohibits them from using any other metric than supply and demand - this would include the speculative opinions of an individual on the price of those shares.

This may sound nitpicky however this is then elaborated on later stating "Each company listed on an exchange must have its stock price updated at least once every 30 days." because of these two facts the Plantiff is wrong, the price of the shares is not in the hands of the buyer and seller but in the hands of the Securities Exchange based on how many shares are being bought and sold as per the supply and demand. So the fact that they agreed to a price in DM's is irrelevant to this case, in fact had my client let them use the price they agreed on in DM's it would actually be in contradiction to the law as it would be "calculating the market prices of shares in Public Companies using any factors other than the market supply of and demand for said shares".

Lastly here I would just like to stress the Plaintiff seems to not understand what 'Supply and Demand' is. Supply and Demand simply means the amount of something available i.e. the Supply vs. the amount of something requested i.e. the Demand. What the Plaintiff is outlining is 'price speculation', which is illegal.

Spoiler: II. FACTS 2. 3. 4.

2. On the same day, the Plaintiff opened a ticket in the Exchange Discord showing the conversation between magsymags and the Plaintiff.

3. Aezal (Discord name being “Someone”) stated that the price (including commission) for the stocks would be $3,158.94 and had no problem with the transaction.

4. magsymags sent $3,000 to Nacholebraa the day prior, September 5th. This money was deposited into an account with the Exchange. An account with the Exchange has the sole purpose of processing transactions with the Exchange.

2. In this section of their argument The Plaintiff seems to be under the illusion that the deal was going ahead with their custom price of $3,000 - despite no indication of such. This is not the case, the price that the Plaintiff was quoted by my client was $3,158.94. As seen by "Defense Evidence Article 1." below, the price for 8 ONYX shares was $2,871.76 - this plus the commission for the exchanges brings the price of the total deal to $3,158.94. This price is determined within the confines of the legal requirements that my client adheres to, it is updated regularly based on supply and demand.

Spoiler: II. FACTS 5.

5. Aezal continually belittled, facepalmed, cussed at, and laughed at the Plaintiff for “legit just using [the bot] wrong” when the Plaintiff did not want to use the bot because it did not allow for supply and demand to dictate the price of stocks.

3. This is of no consequence to the law. But the Defense would still like to address this as it is of consequence to my clients reputation. Firstly after many, many messages of the the Plaintiff repeatedly not understanding or following the instructions outlined by my client on how the process worked my client posted a laughing face, then when they started to make their own suggestion on how to fix the problem instead of following the ones provided by my client, my client said "facepalming". Then when they started to argue on the legality of the bot my client posted a faceplam emoji and said "truly losing it". Then finally after the Plaintiff dug their heels in and furthermore tried to state their right to decide the price did my client say "Holy f*** dude" - these interactions are, in the Defenses opinion, an adequate response to the manner in which the Plaintiff communicates, and no doubt reactions that some have had in reading the case presented by the Plaintiff.

Furthermore the last statement there once again highlights the fact that the Plaintiff has built this entire case on their misunderstanding on how Supply and Demand works, if the court may refer to '1.' refuting this.

Spoiler: II. FACTS 6.

6. Aezal states that he will “just manually do it”, meaning he will just manually edit the numbers. This shows that it is a possibility to edit the numbers of stocks an individual owns without requiring the bot to do it, meaning what the Plaintiff wanted to do was entirely possible. This means that the Terms of Service was edited at this very moment because of an agreement between Aezal, magsymags, and the Plaintiff. magsymags upheld his end of the bargain by providing $3,000 to Nacholebraa the day prior. This amount was in magsymags’ Exchange account. An account with the Exchange has the sole purpose of having ready funds to process transactions. The Exchange refused to accept that this amount was usable and demanded another $3,000 to process the transaction. Demanding another $3,000 to process a transaction when $3,000 was already deposited into magsymags’ Exchange account is tantamount to theft. There was no reason to demand another $3,000 when that amount of money was already in his account. As the Defendant has stated in their motion to dismiss in the previous court case that:

“The Exchange (TE) is a privately owned and operated securities exchange. TE states within its terms and services (TOS) that services can be canceled at any time with or without notice.”

The Exchange is well within its rights to change the terms at any time and that is perfectly fine. However, what the Exchange cannot do is vary the Terms of Service via an agreement and then steal $3,000, and then vary the terms again to cover up stealing the $3,000 (by closing the ticket and cancelling the service agreed to by Aezal).

4. Here we come to the section outlined in our original Motion to Dismiss, to save the court the trouble of us having to repeat ourselves. I will just elaborate on the facts outside of the Perjury.

Firstly by my client stating they will manually do it they mean they will manually run it through the bot because of the Plaintiff's inability to follow basic instruction.

Secondly, of course my client has the ability to manually edit the numbers - they built the thing! Here the Plaintiff is arguing my client was wrong for helping him after he asked them to help him.

Thirdly my client never requested another $3,000 from magsymags. They requested magsymags have $3,158.94 - the amount required for the sale - in their exchange account, magsymags only had $3,000. My client is not responsible for the inability of the Plaintiff to be able to read the difference between $3,000 and $3,158.94.

Fourthly with regards to Terms of Service being edited, well frankly I'm actually struggling to understand the point or purpose of what the Plaintiff is trying to say here. Truly, they state the ToS was "varied" - whatever that means. But don't outline in any actual language any specific changes. They quote part of the ToS but they don't explain how it was altered, they just say it was - I can't argue against this your honor, if given nothing to refute I must simple just highlight its emptiness.

Lastly, none of this is of consequence because magsymags is not a party to this case. The interactions between magsymags and my client are not the business of the Plaintiff, if the Plaintiff had wished magsymags to be party to this case they could have sued together - however they did not. But even if they had they would still be wrong because the root issue is with the Plaintiff and magsymags' inability to use the services provided.

Spoiler: II. FACTS 7.

7. Aezal states:

“Custom prices where never (supposed to be) supported. Ya’ll cant just say ‘ok im gonna give u my shares at a discount.’ Aint how stocks work.”

The Plaintiff replies that they are his stocks that he can sell at his own price and there is nothing wrong with that and says: “If two people agree on a price, the transaction goes through.”

The Plaintiff’s position is proven correct with a quick reading of the the Corporate Law and Shareholder Protection Act 4(3). If a buyer and seller agree on a price, that is a price dictated by supply and demand and must be allowed. Any deviation from that is illegal.

5. I want to draw the courts attention to the section I have highlighted, and in particular the words I have underlined. "Quick Reading" - well that's the problem with this entire case in a nutshell. It would seem to the Defence that a "quick reading" is the preferred method of reading for the Plaintiff, given their continued misunderstanding at every single point through this entire sorry affair. Complicated laws like the Corporate Law and Shareholder Protection Act are not made for quick reading, you don't skim them while you sit on the loo. They require careful reading and a level of understanding. Once again the Plaintiff outlines their misunderstanding of the rules of Supply and Demand as outlined in the Act - which we elaborated on in point '1.' The Defence would please stress to the Plaintiff for the sake of their own professional reputation to pay more attention to the laws they read.

But once again the Plaintiff just makes the same argument they have been making repeatedly throughout, which we have already refuted in '1.'. This is the last section where the Defence is going to respond to this argument regarding the Plaintiff's misunderstanding of 'Supply and Demand' as repeatedly saying see '1.' is getting tiresome, this entire case is built on the Plaintiff's inability to read the law and understand how Supply and Demand works. The Defence would ask the Court refer to '1.' for the Plaintiff's continued repetition of this argument in 'II. FACTS 8. - 14.', the Defence will only comment on parts of this section not based on this fact from hereon in.

Spoiler: II. FACTS 10.

10. After the explanation of the situation by the Plaintiff to Nacholebraa, Aezal states that the total price of the 8 Onyx Industries stocks is $2,871.78 and that the commission is $287.17. That commission is 10% of the total sale price of stocks. $158.94 is most definitely not 10% of the stock price of $3,000. This shows a wild discrepancy and inconsistency between commission amounts. This 10% commission is confirmed in another conversation between Aladeen and Aezal. Aezal lied to the Plaintiff about the amount of commission that should be paid. The Plaintiff disagreed with the price of the stocks as that price ($2,871.78) was not agreed upon by magsymags and the Plaintiff.

6. Your Honor, I'm sorry for a little lapse in professionalism but this bit is actually a little bit funny - if I didn't know the Plaintiff was being serious I would think they were joking. The Plaintiff here was actually right: "$158.94 is most definitely not 10% of the stock price of $3,000.". This is because as the Plaintiff just outlined "the total price of the 8 Onyx Industries stocks is $2,871.78 and that the commission is $287.17." Once again this whole thing stems from the fact that Plaintiff doesn't understand anything about how stocks and exchanges work on the server, they don't understand what the phrase 'Supply and Demand' means, and they refused every attempt by my client to try and assist them.

II. DEFENCES

Spoiler: III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 1.

1. The Exchange has violated the law that they have stated on multiple occasions they are attempting to abide by — the Corporate Law and Shareholder Protections Act. The applicable part of this law being:

“Securities Exchanges will be prohibited from calculating the market prices of shares in Public Companies using any factors other than the market supply of and demand for said shares. They will be responsible for updating these prices without requiring further input from the companies of which the shares grant ownership in.”

The Exchange has refused to process the transaction between the Plaintiff and magsymags and forced both the Plaintiff and magsymags to use the Discord bot. This bot forces people to use an arbitrary price. This price is not variable. That means that people cannot buy and sell things at a price that the market deems fair. If a buyer (demand) and a seller (supply) agree on a price, that is what the market deems fair and that transaction must be processed as deemed by the law quoted above. The Exchange refused to do this.

1. As we have repeatedly highlighted in our response, the Plaintiff has no understanding of how Supply and Demand works, has no understanding of how to use the bot provided by my client and has no understanding of the Corporate Law and Shareholder Protections Act. Therefore this accusation that the price the Exchange provided for the transaction is illegal, one calculated by The Exchange bot based on actual Supply and Demand, is false and completely incorrect. The Plaintiff requested that my client break the law, my client refused, and now the Plaintiff is suing my client for refusing.

Spoiler: III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 2. - The first instance of '2.'

2. The Exchange lying to the Plaintiff three times.

First was that it was illegal for the sale with custom prices to be facilitated.

Second was that the commission was $158.94 and not $300 (10% of $3,000), which was later changed to 10% (287.17) when the total price of stocks were lowered by Aezal from the agreed upon $3,000 down to $2871.76.

Third was the reiteration of the fact that the Exchange supposedly cannot facilitate the transfer of stocks at a custom price agreed to by two parties because it is illegal.

2. Once more it is illegal to make a sale with custom prices.

Secondly my client never said the commission was $158.94, this number stems from the Plaintiffs continued inability and resistance to listen to others. The commission was always $287.17.

Thirdly, it is illegal to make a sale with custom prices.

Spoiler: III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 2. - The second instance of '2.'

2. The forcing a transfer of stocks by the Exchange at a different price than was determined by supply and demand. It was already explicitly stated that the transfer was possible by Aezal before he deemed that it was illegal, when, in fact, it was and is most definitely not illegal.

3. The Plaintiff has already had this claim in 'III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 1.', just repeated here in different language to pad out an already bloated lawsuit. Please refer to our answer there.

Spoiler: III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 3.

3. The insults and belittlement by the Exchange.

4. Not illegal and of no consequence to this case.

Spoiler: III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 4.

4. The three previous claims caused the Plaintiff to lose out on a deal that was already agreed upon.

5. No, the Plaintiff inability to follow basic instruction given by my client is what has caused them to lose out on a deal. The Plaintiff's insistence on trying to bully my client into breaking the law is what has lost them on on a deal. the Plaintiff has nobody to blame here save themselves.

Also if I may just highlight the unprofessionalism of the Plaintiff here once more, they say "The three previous claims", as this is the claim numbered '4.' that would make sense. Except for the fact that they actually included two claims numbered '2.' so there had previously been 4 claims, it is the little things like this that make this case so hard to navigate as the Defence cannot be sure if something is a mistake, a misunderstanding or intentional.

Spoiler: IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 1.

1. $30,000 in punitive damages from the Exchange (or Nacholebraa as he is the owner of the Exchange)

6. The Plaintiff does not explain how they have received $30,000 in damages, the Defence here is going to assume that the Plaintiff meant to write $3,000 in damages but made yet another mistake, just like all the other ones littered throughout this suit, when writing this and then in a 'quick reading' of their suit to proofread did not catch the mistake.

Spoiler: IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 2.

2. A public and sincere apology from the Exchange to all customers of the Exchange for breaking the law and damaging its customers.

7. The Plaintiff fails to provide any examples of anyone else having the same problems that they have had, presumably this is due to the fact that all the other customers have been able to complete their transactions legally because they followed the rules as outlined. Here the Plaintiff makes the claim that all customers of the Exchange have engaged in illegal deals - this is just not true and is a highly damaging accusation, hopefully one the court can refute for the good of my clients reputation.

And with that your Honor the Defence closes their opening statement, we hope that these events can come to a speedy conclusion and based on this would like to submit a second Motion to Dismiss.

Spoiler: Defence Evidence Article 1.

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 28th day of September 2022

Spoiler: MOTION TO DISMISS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Admin23
Plaintiff

v.

The Exchange (Represented by DouCo Law Partners)
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. The Plaintiff's core argument summed up in a concise manner is - to the best of our ability:
i) The Exchange is breaking the law, stating they must use Supply and Demand for pricing, by not allowing for custom prices determined by individuals because of the bot which runs the Exchange.
ii) My Client tried to steal $3,000 from magsymags.

2. The argument that the Exchange does not follow the law is incorrect as this argument stems from a lack of understanding on the Plaintiff's part about what pricing based on 'Supply and Demand' means, the Plaintiff thinks it means something to the effect of "The demanded price for the supplied item" - in reality this is actually pricing based on 'Speculative Opinion' which is illegal. 'Supply and Demand' means that the price of the shares is dictated by the number of shares available vs the number of shares wanting to be bought, which is how the bot calculates its prices and why the Exchange requests its customers use it - the Exchange works very, very hard to adhere to the law. If it were not for this misunderstanding on the Plaintiff's part there would be no case.

3. The argument that my client tried to steal $3,000 has been refuted in the above arguments, once again this misunderstanding stems from the Plaintiff not actually reading what my client has said and instead trying to work around their inability to follow the instructions and assistance my client has tried to provide. Furthermore as magsymags is not a party to the lawsuit then the argument is immaterial.

4. The Defense would like to reiterate its previous request that the Plaintiff should compensate my client for the $15,000 they have had to spend on legal fees, plus an extra $5,000 for their time in collecting evidence - this case has eaten up a massive amount of time for my client and the Defense.

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 28th day of September 2022

 

[Admin23]

Your Honors, objection.

Breach of procedure. It has only been 36 hours since the time of the deadline being set by JoeGamer. Furthermore, the court has not invited opposing counsel to post their opening statement.

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

Apologies your honor,

When writing the Defense opening statement I must have clicked post reply by mistake.

 

[Admin23]

Your Honors, opposing counsel,

I regret to inform you that I have just been told about a family emergency that I must attend to and thus will prevent me from submitting my opening statement by the current deadline.

I request the court to allow an extension to the deadline of 48 hours.

 

[JoeGamer]

The_Donuticus, you are found in direct contempt of this Court. Both parties were warned to avoid breaching Court procedure back in the previous objection. The statement will be struck from the record. I hereby order the DOJ to fine The_Donuticus $500 for first offense contempt of court. Do not speak out of turn.

48 hours extension granted. Please file your opening statement by October 2nd at 12:01 PM Eastern Standard Time.

 

[Admin23]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT


Good evening, your Honors, opposing counsel.


Before I begin my opening statement, I would like to ask how the Court would like me to edit my images attached to my complaint to be more neat. I am not sure how to downsize images and I do not believe I am allowed to delete posts or parts of posts after the fact due to the issue of documentation of court cases. I do not know how to comply with the Court’s request.


I intend to prove in court that the Defendant, the Exchange, has violated the Corporate Law and Shareholder Protections Act and has committed fraud.

I would like to tell the Court a story. Once upon a time, there was this spaceship. On this spaceship, there was a red man. This red man is in charge of the space ship.

The crew went about their business and do their tasks on this spaceship. One crew member, the blue man states that he would like to trade, let’s say 8 honey crisp apples with the green man. The green man and the blue man agree on the price of 3 Spanish gold doubloons minted in 1574 that were sunk on a ship in a trade fleet off the coast of Florida. Then, the red man states that this is not allowed to happen and the price for these 8 honey crisp apples must be sold for 2 Spanish gold doubloons and accuses the blue man of being suspicious. A sus man, one could say.

When the green and blue man argue that their price was fair, and not, in fact, a sus price, and was determined by supply and demand. The blue man then quotes John Locke, the founder of all money and economies, by saying:

“But there is only one thing which gathers people into seditious commotion, and that is oppression.”

And then exclaimed that the red man sus and is the impersonator that is among us.


In case you could not tell, in this case, the red man is the Defendant. Your Honors, the question you should ask yourselves throughout this court case is: “is the Defendant sus?” By the end of this lawsuit, I intend to convince you all to come to the conclusion that the Defendant is indeed, sus, and that $30,000 of the Defendant’s money should be ejected from the spaceship as retribution for the red man’s act of being sus (aka committing several laws).


DATED: This 1st day of October, 2022.

 

[JoeGamer]

The Supreme Court has voted to dismiss this case. The Supreme Court will not tolerate people who file cases and then proceed to make light of the Courts time and resources.

The Supreme Court finds Admin23 guilty of one count of frivolous court case. I hereby order the Department of Justice to fine Admin23 $60. In addition, the Supreme Court order Admin23 to pay $15,000 in legal fees to The Exchange.

This case is hereby dismissed.