Lawsuit: In Session Bardiya_King v. Reveille FC [2024] FCR 82

Freeze_Line

Freeze_Line

Citizen
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Supporter
2nd Anniversary
Freeze_Line
Freeze_Line
attorney
Joined
Jun 25, 2021
Messages
91
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Bardiya_King (Represented by Dragon Law)
Plaintiff

v.

Reveille FC
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The plaintiff agreed to acquire Reveille FC, a soccer team, from Gertis for the sum of $11,000. As part of this purchase, the plaintiff gained ownership rights to various assets integral to the team's identity, including the Discord server, the logo, and notably, the team's name itself. However, a new discovery revealed that former co-owners of the club had independently created and registered another team under the same name.

Efforts to resolve this issue with the former co-owners proved unsuccessful, as they denied the plaintiff rightful ownership of the name. Faced with no alternative resort, the plaintiff determined to pursue legal action to vindicate their rightful claim to the team's name.


I. PARTIES
1. Bardiya_King (Represented by Dragon Law)
2. Reveille FC (NotBender_942, Louder_Leo)
3. Gertis (Former Soccer Team Owner)

II. FACTS
1. The Plaintiff acquired ownership of Reveille FC through a transaction conducted via a Discord call in December 2023, as evidenced by Exhibit A.

2. The Plaintiff holds exclusive ownership rights to Reveille FC. However, the Defendant has established a separate team using the same name, as evidenced by Exhibits B and C.

3. Cease and Desist letters were sent to both defendant parties, notifying them of the Plaintiff's rightful ownership and requesting that they cease using the name Reveille FC, as shown in Exhibit D.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant's actions constitute a violation of the Intellectual Property Act. According to the Intellectual Property Act, a breach of trademark occurs when someone "Engages in one or more of the following actions: Producing, replicating or impersonating recognizable signs, designs, or expressions that identify a company, product, or service." By naming their new soccer team Reveille FC, the Defendant has violated the Intellectual Property Act.

2. The definition of Emotional Damages as per the Legal Damages Act is, “Situations in which a person suffers psychological harm due to an entity's negligent or intentional actions.”. The Plaintiff suffered emotional damages when they realized that their ownership rights to Reveille FC were compromised by the Defendant's actions.

3. The definition of Loss of Enjoyment as per the Legal Damages Act is, “situations in which an injured party loses their ability to engage in certain activities in the way that the injured party did before the harm.”. The Plaintiff also suffered a loss of enjoyment as they could no longer engage with and manage their soccer team Reveille FC.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. The Plaintiff seeks $12,000 in compensatory damages for the unjust use of the team's name by the Defendant.

2. The Plaintiff seeks $4,000 for emotional distress and loss of enjoyment.

3. The Plaintiff seeks rightful ownership of Reveille FC.

4. The Plaintiff seeks an injunction preventing the Defendant from continuing to use the team's name.

5. The Plaintiff seeks $4,000 in compensation for legal fees.

V. EVIDENCE

exhibit A.png

Exhibit B.png

Exhibit C.png

CaD letter 1.png
CaD letter 2.png

Representational Agreement.png

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 3 day of june 2024
 
Seal_Judiciary.png


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS
@NotBender_942 and @Louder_Leo are required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Bardiya_King v. Reveille FC. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures , including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​
 
NotBender_942 has retained Prestige Law for this case. We will have an Answer to Complaint/Motion to Dismiss shortly.
Screenshot 2024-06-08 105739.png
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Bardiya_King
Plaintiff

v.

Reveille FC
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT​

  1. Disputes - Ownership of Reveille FC: The official records, as per the DemocracyCraft Businesses Plugin, recognize Louder_Leo as the owner of Reveille FC. This ownership is validated by the Department of Commerce. The Plaintiff has not provided any evidence that contradicts the fact that Louder_Leoowns Reveille FC. The name "Reveille FC" is owned by Louder_Leo.​

  2. Affirms - Cease and Desist Letters: The Plaintiff has sent Cease and Desist letters to the Defendant.
  3. Disputes - Plaintiff's Ownership Claim: The Plaintiff does not have rightful ownership of Reveille FC. The company is officially owned by Louder_Leo, as confirmed by the DemocracyCraft Businesses Plugin and the Department of Commerce.

II. DEFENSES​

  1. Ownership Clarification: The Plaintiff does not own Reveille FC according to the DemocracyCraft Businesses Plugin. Reveille FC is not engaging in any activities that involve producing, replicating, or impersonating recognizable signs, designs, or expressions that identify a company, product, or service. The business is lawfully owned and operated, and there is no intent to impersonate another entity (see Exhibit A).
  2. Lack of Contractual Evidence: The Plaintiff has not provided any contract or formal agreement between Girtis and Bardiya_king concerning the purchase of the name Reveille FC. The only evidence provided is a message sent "yesterday," which is insufficient to establish a binding agreement.
  3. Ownership Claim by Gertis: The Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that Gertis ever owned the name Reveille FC. Without proof of ownership, Gertis can't have legitimately sold the club to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff's claim lacks a foundational basis.


(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

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 This 09 day of 06 2024

Exhibit A
AD_4nXd6gVpiiPKzrkKD2fDhJaUhaQSa8EWTwNxL5dmUbv_fZtl4dH3MyL3WrIOZNwRuHfRLZF22UFOyV4agIl1hRzIQ_RQ63FrqDhX0yZtbBFSEY-I1sWYxdi43zKqZplwQKbxNppS8mWhetAOjyzxMDACJMtX9


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

Bardiya_King
Plaintiff

v.

Reveille FC
Defendant


MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

Frivolous Nature of the Case (Rule 5.5)- The Plaintiff's case is based on a frivolous matter, as the Plaintiff has no legitimate claim to the ownership of the name "ReveilleFC." According to the DemocracyCraft Businesses Plugin, the name "ReveilleFC" is officially owned by the Defendant, Louder_Leo, as shown in Exhibit A. Your Honor, it is illogical to assert a breach of copyright laws for using the name of a company that the Defendant clearly owns,


The Defence also asks for $10,000 in compensatory damages to cover extra costs arising from the lawsuit and for defamation of character hinting that the Defendants committed a crime.

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.

(The words defendant and complaint should be changed in case the motion is to dismiss a counterclaim.)

DATED: This 09 day of 06 2024
 
dodrio3 said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Bardiya_King
Plaintiff

v.

Reveille FC
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT​

  1. Disputes - Ownership of Reveille FC: The official records, as per the DemocracyCraft Businesses Plugin, recognize Louder_Leo as the owner of Reveille FC. This ownership is validated by the Department of Commerce. The Plaintiff has not provided any evidence that contradicts the fact that Louder_Leoowns Reveille FC. The name "Reveille FC" is owned by Louder_Leo.​

  2. Affirms - Cease and Desist Letters: The Plaintiff has sent Cease and Desist letters to the Defendant.
  3. Disputes - Plaintiff's Ownership Claim: The Plaintiff does not have rightful ownership of Reveille FC. The company is officially owned by Louder_Leo, as confirmed by the DemocracyCraft Businesses Plugin and the Department of Commerce.

II. DEFENSES​

  1. Ownership Clarification: The Plaintiff does not own Reveille FC according to the DemocracyCraft Businesses Plugin. Reveille FC is not engaging in any activities that involve producing, replicating, or impersonating recognizable signs, designs, or expressions that identify a company, product, or service. The business is lawfully owned and operated, and there is no intent to impersonate another entity (see Exhibit A).
  2. Lack of Contractual Evidence: The Plaintiff has not provided any contract or formal agreement between Girtis and Bardiya_king concerning the purchase of the name Reveille FC. The only evidence provided is a message sent "yesterday," which is insufficient to establish a binding agreement.
  3. Ownership Claim by Gertis: The Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that Gertis ever owned the name Reveille FC. Without proof of ownership, Gertis can't have legitimately sold the club to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff's claim lacks a foundational basis.


(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

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 This 09 day of 06 2024

Exhibit A
AD_4nXd6gVpiiPKzrkKD2fDhJaUhaQSa8EWTwNxL5dmUbv_fZtl4dH3MyL3WrIOZNwRuHfRLZF22UFOyV4agIl1hRzIQ_RQ63FrqDhX0yZtbBFSEY-I1sWYxdi43zKqZplwQKbxNppS8mWhetAOjyzxMDACJMtX9


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

Bardiya_King
Plaintiff

v.

Reveille FC
Defendant


MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

Frivolous Nature of the Case (Rule 5.5)- The Plaintiff's case is based on a frivolous matter, as the Plaintiff has no legitimate claim to the ownership of the name "ReveilleFC." According to the DemocracyCraft Businesses Plugin, the name "ReveilleFC" is officially owned by the Defendant, Louder_Leo, as shown in Exhibit A. Your Honor, it is illogical to assert a breach of copyright laws for using the name of a company that the Defendant clearly owns,


The Defence also asks for $10,000 in compensatory damages to cover extra costs arising from the lawsuit and for defamation of character hinting that the Defendants committed a crime.

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.

(The words defendant and complaint should be changed in case the motion is to dismiss a counterclaim.)

DATED: This 09 day of 06 2024
Click to expand...

The Court request that next time you use Proper Formatting and File the Answer to Complaint and Motion to Dismiss in separate post, keeps the threat cleaner and easier to reference in the future.

The Plaintiff will now have 48 Hours to respond to the Motion to Dismiss.

@Louder_Leo Still has not made themselves present before this court, nor have the indicated they have retained Council. They still have less then 6 Hours to do so before they are held in contempt.
 
RESPONSE TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS

Contrary to the Defendant's assertion, the Plaintiff acquired the rights to the name "ReveilleFC" at a time when no in-game company was registered under this name. This acquisition predates any claim or registration by the Defendant. The following points substantiate the Plaintiff's legitimate claim:

- The Plaintiff acquired and began using the name "ReveilleFC" when there was no existing in-game company or registration of this name. This is evidenced by Exhibit E.

- At the time of the Plaintiff's acquisition, the DemocracyCraft Businesses Plugin did not list "ReveilleFC" as an owned or registered name by any party. This indicates that the Plaintiff's use of the name was not in violation of any existing rights.

- The Defendant's subsequent registration of the name "ReveilleFC" does not invalidate the Plaintiff's prior rights and usage. The Plaintiff's claim to the name should be recognized as valid, given the absence of any competing claims at the time of acquisition.

Based on the mentioned points and supporting evidence, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiff has a legitimate claim to the ownership and rights to the name "ReveilleFC," which predates any claim made by the Defendant. The Plaintiff's case is not frivolous but rather based on established and provable facts.

Exhibit E.png
 
Motion to Dismiss is hereby denied, discovery can shed light on these claims. Before we move forward, the court will wait for Louder_Leo to appear or his attorney, failure to do so and failure for both partys to agree to the same attorney will force me to break up the case.
 
Your honor, Louder_Leo has failed to appear in court within the required time.
 
Your Honour this case is agents Reville FC not any individual. I am here representing the club.
 
Your Honor, Dodrio would still need Louder_Leo’s representational consent.
 
dodrio3 said:
Your Honour this case is agents Reville FC not any individual. I am here representing the club.
Click to expand...

They both are owners and they both need to consent to being represented by the same counsel.
 
@Louder_Leo is hereby held in Contempt of Court, I order the Department of Homeland Security to fine/jail accordingly.

I will allow and additional 24 Hours for them to appear before this court.
 
Louder_Leo has agreed for Prestige law to represent the club
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2024-06-10 154649.png
    Screenshot 2024-06-10 154649.png
    26.8 KB · Views: 53
We will now be moving into a 7 Day Discovery period. Should both sides agree, discovery can be ended early.
 
Your Honor, the plaintiff would like to submit the following list of witnesses:

- Gertis7
 
You're Honour, I am taking a break from law work over pay disputes ItsBlazex should shortly reassign someone to this case
 
Your honour it has been over 7 days.
 
We will now move into opening statements, Plaintiff has 72 Hours to give their opening remarks.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

It is undeniable that when someone purchases something from an individual, they get the ownership transferred to their name. In this case, the defendant decided to ignore those common concepts and the laws that protect them. As clearly shown in Exhibits A, B, and E, the former owner, Gertis, admits to having sold the company to the plaintiff. The defense simply ignores this and proceeds with their plans, knowing that what they did was wrong. This is clearly a violation of the Intellectual Property Act. No matter how you look at it, the company was sold to the plaintiff for $11,000, and the ownership was transferred.

The defense uses the DemocracyCraft Businesses Plugin to prove ownership, but how can that prove anything when there was no company with that name during the time of the transfer? (As established in the recent Exhibit E). The defense also claims that there is a lack of contractual evidence, but there was a verbal agreement covering acceptance, offer, and consideration, which is enough for an agreement to be valid. The funds were also transferred in exchange for the ownership of the club. Finally, the defense argues that Gertis was not a former owner of the club. However, Exhibits A, B, and E solidify his involvement in this matter as the former owner. We will further prove this when we summon Gertis.
 
Defense has 72 hours to submit their Opening statement's.
 
I will no longer be looking over this case as I have left prestige law firm.
 
Freeze_Line said:
RESPONSE TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS

Contrary to the Defendant's assertion, the Plaintiff acquired the rights to the name "ReveilleFC" at a time when no in-game company was registered under this name. This acquisition predates any claim or registration by the Defendant. The following points substantiate the Plaintiff's legitimate claim:

- The Plaintiff acquired and began using the name "ReveilleFC" when there was no existing in-game company or registration of this name. This is evidenced by Exhibit E.

- At the time of the Plaintiff's acquisition, the DemocracyCraft Businesses Plugin did not list "ReveilleFC" as an owned or registered name by any party. This indicates that the Plaintiff's use of the name was not in violation of any existing rights.

- The Defendant's subsequent registration of the name "ReveilleFC" does not invalidate the Plaintiff's prior rights and usage. The Plaintiff's claim to the name should be recognized as valid, given the absence of any competing claims at the time of acquisition.

Based on the mentioned points and supporting evidence, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiff has a legitimate claim to the ownership and rights to the name "ReveilleFC," which predates any claim made by the Defendant. The Plaintiff's case is not frivolous but rather based on established and provable facts.

View attachment 44350
Click to expand...
OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure
My apologies for this coming so late your honor, the prior attorney assigned to this case did not catch this. Your honor, this evidence was entered prior to discovery. Given that this was not entered during discovery, this evidence is inadmissible.
 
Freeze_Line said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Bardiya_King (Represented by Dragon Law)
Plaintiff

v.

Reveille FC
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The plaintiff agreed to acquire Reveille FC, a soccer team, from Gertis for the sum of $11,000. As part of this purchase, the plaintiff gained ownership rights to various assets integral to the team's identity, including the Discord server, the logo, and notably, the team's name itself. However, a new discovery revealed that former co-owners of the club had independently created and registered another team under the same name.

Efforts to resolve this issue with the former co-owners proved unsuccessful, as they denied the plaintiff rightful ownership of the name. Faced with no alternative resort, the plaintiff determined to pursue legal action to vindicate their rightful claim to the team's name.


I. PARTIES
1. Bardiya_King (Represented by Dragon Law)
2. Reveille FC (NotBender_942, Louder_Leo)
3. Gertis (Former Soccer Team Owner)

II. FACTS
1. The Plaintiff acquired ownership of Reveille FC through a transaction conducted via a Discord call in December 2023, as evidenced by Exhibit A.

2. The Plaintiff holds exclusive ownership rights to Reveille FC. However, the Defendant has established a separate team using the same name, as evidenced by Exhibits B and C.

3. Cease and Desist letters were sent to both defendant parties, notifying them of the Plaintiff's rightful ownership and requesting that they cease using the name Reveille FC, as shown in Exhibit D.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant's actions constitute a violation of the Intellectual Property Act. According to the Intellectual Property Act, a breach of trademark occurs when someone "Engages in one or more of the following actions: Producing, replicating or impersonating recognizable signs, designs, or expressions that identify a company, product, or service." By naming their new soccer team Reveille FC, the Defendant has violated the Intellectual Property Act.

2. The definition of Emotional Damages as per the Legal Damages Act is, “Situations in which a person suffers psychological harm due to an entity's negligent or intentional actions.”. The Plaintiff suffered emotional damages when they realized that their ownership rights to Reveille FC were compromised by the Defendant's actions.

3. The definition of Loss of Enjoyment as per the Legal Damages Act is, “situations in which an injured party loses their ability to engage in certain activities in the way that the injured party did before the harm.”. The Plaintiff also suffered a loss of enjoyment as they could no longer engage with and manage their soccer team Reveille FC.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. The Plaintiff seeks $12,000 in compensatory damages for the unjust use of the team's name by the Defendant.

2. The Plaintiff seeks $4,000 for emotional distress and loss of enjoyment.

3. The Plaintiff seeks rightful ownership of Reveille FC.

4. The Plaintiff seeks an injunction preventing the Defendant from continuing to use the team's name.

5. The Plaintiff seeks $4,000 in compensation for legal fees.

V. EVIDENCE

View attachment 44114

View attachment 44115

View attachment 44116

View attachment 44119View attachment 44120

View attachment 44121

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 3 day of june 2024
Click to expand...
OBJECTION
Hearsay
Your honor, Exhibits A and C are simply statements from another party. If they want the opinion of Gertis, then they should have called him as a witness.
 
Your honor, I would just like to clarify that I am waiting on a response to the objections before I present my opening statement.
 
itsBlazeX said:
OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure
My apologies for this coming so late your honor, the prior attorney assigned to this case did not catch this. Your honor, this evidence was entered prior to discovery. Given that this was not entered during discovery, this evidence is inadmissible.
Click to expand...
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION
Your Honor, it is too late to object to this exhibit since it was already included in the opening statement. If the defense had any issues with it, they should have raised them prior to the opening statement. Since there were no objections before, it cannot be an issue now.
 
itsBlazeX said:
OBJECTION
Hearsay
Your honor, Exhibits A and C are simply statements from another party. If they want the opinion of Gertis, then they should have called him as a witness.
Click to expand...
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION
Your Honor, Gertis was included in the witness list that was provided during discovery.
 
My apologize, with all the changes recently this case slipped through the cracks, all objections are overruled. The evidence will not be entered into the record, Exhibits A and C will be allowed to remain and gertis is on the witness list. @itsBlazeX has 24 Hours to submit the opening statement or will be held in contempt.
 
SumoMC said:
My apologize, with all the changes recently this case slipped through the cracks, all objections are overruled. The evidence will not be entered into the record, Exhibits A and C will be allowed to remain and gertis is on the witness list. @itsBlazeX has 24 Hours to submit the opening statement or will be held in contempt.
Click to expand...
Your Honor, only Exhibit E wasn’t presented at the beginning of the trial. Why isn’t Exhibit B allowed to remain?
 
Your honor, I am on a trip right now and will not return until tomorrow night. I request a 48 hour extension.
 
Freeze_Line said:
Your Honor, only Exhibit E wasn’t presented at the beginning of the trial. Why isn’t Exhibit B allowed to remain?
Click to expand...
they only objected to A and C, b and D will remain as well.
 
Your Honor, on behalf of Blazex, Prestige Law respectfully requests a 24-hour extension for document submission as he was traveling and wasn’t able to make it home until late last night.
 
May it please the Court,

Your honor, this is a case with no merit. The Plaintiff claims that Reveille FC was sold to them, and that the Defendants are no longer able to use the Reveille FC name. Well let's look at the evidence the Plaintiff has provided. Unfortunately for them, they don't have any evidence to support their claim. The only evidence the Plaintiff has provided, are vague statements that don't even prove there was a sale in the first place.

The Plaintiff claims the Defendant's actions constitute a violation of the Intellectual Property Act. "According to the Intellectual Property Act, a breach of trademark occurs when someone "Engages in one or more of the following actions: Producing, replicating or impersonating recognizable signs, designs, or expressions that identify a company, product, or service." By naming their new soccer team Reveille FC, the Defendant has violated the Intellectual Property Act." How can the Defendant have violated the Intellectual Property Act, when it is the Defendant who owns Reveille FC? The Plaintiff has provided no evidence that this sale even happened. The only way this case can proceed as though the Plaintiff owns Reveille FC is if they have provided concrete evidence that they are in fact the owners of the team. Given that they have failed to do so, it must be assumed the Defendant is in fact the owner of Reveille FC. And given this, is entire claim has no merit.

The Plaintiff also claims that they "suffered emotional damages when they realized that their ownership rights to Reveille FC were compromised by the Defendant's actions." I am not sure how emotional damages can even be relevant to this case, but even if they were, the Plaintiff has not proved that they suffered emotional injury. Emotional damages cannot be awarded simply because the Plaintiff says so.

Lastly, according to the Plaintiff, "The Plaintiff also suffered a loss of enjoyment as they could no longer engage with and manage their soccer team Reveille FC." Yet again, the Plaintiff has failed to provide evidence of this being true.

Your honor, this is a case with big claims from the Plaintiff, but no actual evidence to back it up. Given there is no evidence to support the Plaintiff's claims, I respectfully request you take into account the lack of evidence when determining the outcome of this case.

Thank you.
 
Witness Summons will be issued shortly.
 
Seal_Judiciary.png


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

@Gertis is hereby required to appear in the case of Bardiya_King V. Reveillle FC. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a Contempt of Court charge.​
 
Hello I was summoned but I already tried DMing Sumo and I made a ticket that I will not have access to my phone starting tomorrow until July 30th, so I can only do this after.
 
1. Gertis, could you list all the previous owners of Reveille FC?

2. And Gertis, did you sell Reveille FC for $11,000 to Bardiya during a Discord call in December 2023?
 
Freeze_Line said:
1. Gertis, could you list all the previous owners of Reveille FC?

2. And Gertis, did you sell Reveille FC for $11,000 to Bardiya during a Discord call in December 2023?
Click to expand...

This Court is hereby put into Recess until July 30th, 2024 due to the witness not being able to testify until then. Should the plaintiff wish to move on without their testimony, we will resume.
 
Freeze_Line said:
1. Gertis, could you list all the previous owners of Reveille FC?

2. And Gertis, did you sell Reveille FC for $11,000 to Bardiya during a Discord call in December 2023?
Click to expand...
1. I started it and co owned it 50-50 with Louder_Leo.

2. I did.

If thats all I have to answer, I can do it right now.
 
No more questions, your honor.
 
Your honor, I sent my only message in this thread while performing my duties as a former clerk for Prestige Law on behalf of the attorney assigned to the case at that time. I am no longer with Prestige Law.
 
MichaelMouseStar said:
Your honor, I sent my only message in this thread while performing my duties as a former clerk for Prestige Law on behalf of the attorney assigned to the case at that time. I am no longer with Prestige Law.
Click to expand...

Thank you for that information, we will recess for 72 hours for them to find new council.
 
Your honor, it has almost been 4 days.
 
Your Honour, Appologies for the delay I will be taking on this case. I will provide questions shortly
 
1. Gertis, What percentage of the Reveille FC did you sell to the plaintiff?

2. Gertis, Was Reveille FC ever registered as an official business with the Department of Commerce?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top