Lawsuit: Adjourned Lemonade Corp & VerniciaS Vs. Hoardco [2022] FCR 37

[RelaxedGV]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Lemonade Corp & VerniciaS
Represented by UtCowboy21 & RelaxedGV
Plaintiff

v.

Hoardco
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows: The Defendant sent a Cease & Desist to the Plaintiffs over a trademark and the selling of items in shulkers.

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF


I. PARTIES
1. Lemonade Corp
2. VerniciaS
3. Hoardco

II. FACTS
1. On May 2nd, The Defendant sent a msg to the owner of Lemonade Corp (Olisaurus123) about a Cease & Desist of the selling of items in shulkers.
2. On the same day (Mary 2nd), the Defendant dmed the owner of VerniciaS (Vernicia) about a Cease & Desist on selling items in shulkers as well.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Fraud

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $1000 for punitive damages (for each company)
2. $1000 for legal fees (for each company)
3. $2500 in lost revenue (for each company)

Exhibit A
AlexThelilLion & Vernicia
Exhibit B
Trent & Vernicia
Exhibit C
Alexthelillion & Olisaurus

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 9 day of May 2022

 

[dygyee]

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

The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of Lemonade Corp and VerniciaS v. HoardCo [2022] FCR 37. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favor 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.​

 

[dygyee]

Lawanoesepr I hereby find you in contempt of court, and order the DOJ to fine you $250 for contempt of court.
And no, deleting your comment does not get you out of a contempt of court charge.

 

[WackJap]

trademarking selling stuff in shulkers is cringe. find me in contempt. i said what i said, and it was worth saying.

 

[dygyee]

I hereby find wackjap in contempt of court and order the DOJ to fine him $250 for contempt of court.

 

[dygyee]

@AlexTheLion, or any other representative for HoardCo, has approximately 39 and a half hours left to appear before the court.

 

[PiOs67]

Good evening your Honor,

The Redmont Law Firm will represent HoardCo and it's CEO AlexTheLillion in this court case.
We are requesting 48 more hours in order to prepare our defense since our client contacted us very recently.

Thank you

 

[dygyee]

I will grant you guys a 24 hour extension, so you have around 52 hours total to file a response.

 

[PiOs67]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Lemonade Corp & VerniciaS
UtCowboy21 & RelaxedGV representing
Plaintiff

v.

TheHoardCo
The Redmont Law Firm representing
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS

The defence move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

Your Honor,

The plaintiff and the public in this court want to present in front of you a profiteer, capable to claim the ownership of a system that everyone use, without any kind of manner! But is it really the truth? The defendant is in reality using a right granted by the law, The Intellectual Property Protection (IPP) act. This case needs to be dismissed with prejudice considering three points.

1° The plaintiffs are basing all their argumentation on one point of law, the fraud.

Maybe is it important to remind opponent party what a fraud is. The fraud is defined in article 10.1 of the Redmont Code 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” to put it in a nut shell, the legislator chose to assimilate fraud and dol.

My client did not hide, misrepresented or omitted anything to the plaintiff, next to that, the plaintiffs are presenting you, as a ground for their claim, two seize and desist letters. What is the link between hiding, misrepresenting or omitting a fact and a seize and desist letter? There is no link, your Honor.

This case does not have any legal ground, and should be dismissed.

2° The absence of a reparable prejudice

However, if we accept to qualify a fraud in this case, this crime still needs to cause an “actual and quantifiable damage” to the victim. Can we see in this case any actual and quantifiable prejudice?

Considering strictly the elements given by the plaintiffs, we can’t identify a “quantifiable damage”, because the plaintiffs don't bother to explain how they suffered from the trademarking. I would remind the court the Concerned Neighbors v. ReinausPrinzzip case ([2021] FCR 62), in which the judge clearly asked the plaintiff to justify the amount of compensation he is asking for.

Moreover, a prejudice that may be compensated in front of a court should be caused by a fault from the defendant, this fault should have caused a prejudice to the victim, and it should be possible to establish a causality link between the fault and the prejudice. What about this case, your Honor?
In this case, there is no fault, since my client strictly act by virtue of the IPP Act. Let me remind the definition of trademark in this act : an “Automatic trademark shall exist for recognisable signs, designs, or expressions which identify companies, products, or services”.
In this situation, TheHoardCo is fully recognizable through this process, regardless of how long this system have been used. DEC secretary recognized it in the conversation provided by the plaintiffs, TheHoardCo business model is “the mass sales of items out of shulkers”. The seize and desist letter sent by the defendant have now to be respected by the virtue of the strict application of the law. The victim is nor VerniciaS, nor Lemonade, but my client who can’t make his rights respected.

This case needs to be dismissed for being frivolous.


3° An unconstitutional demand:

Last but not least, to be compensated, a prejudice has to be legitimate. Arguing that you suffered from a prejudice because of the application of the law can’t offer you the right to ask for a compensation. This case is not against my client, this case is against the law.

The plaintiffs want to obtain reparation for the application of the IPP act. Accepting to consider their demand means accepting to avoid a right instituted by the legislator. This is no more and no less a breach of the separation of power. One exception, by the virtue of the case Superpacman04 v. the Government of Democracy Craft ([2020] FCR 1), “the Court may overturn any law, only if they find it to be interpreted unconstitutionally”, however, it is not what the plaintiff is arguing here.

This case should once again be dismissed for absence of legal ground.

“Lodging a legal case that has no serious purpose or value” is initiating a frivolous court case.
One purpose in this case: prevent a citizen from exercising his rights.

For your consideration,

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 12 day of May 2022

 

[dygyee]

The plaintiff has 48 hours to respond to the motion to dismiss if they wish to respond, otherwise tell the court you wouldn’t like to respond to the motion.

Do not present your opening statement yet, this is only time to respond to the motion.

 

[UtCowboy]

Your honor, due unforeseen circumstances, I will be taking over for RelaxedGV. Until such a time as he can resume as primary in this case. Due to this turn of events, I would to request an additional 24 hours to provide an adequate response.

 

[dygyee]

I will not be giving a 24 hour extension, however you can have 48 hours from the time you requested the extension. This means you have approximately 42.5 hours left to post your response which is enough time.

 

[UtCowboy]

Your honor,
The motion to dismiss predicts what our arguments are; however, we have not had a chance to place our arguments as we have only presented a filing statement and not an opening. The facts of this case have proven that TheHoardCo did in fact file a trademark. However the trademark is not his to place. This we will prove. In addition we will prove that the trademark that was in fact placed was not a law abiding trademark to begin with. This alone is grounds for a case.

Our argument is based on multiple points of law, we are asking for the opportunity to present our case to the court and allow for it to make its ruling. As for the proof of fraud, the plaintiff has hard evidence which shall be submitted to the court. The Defense has labeled our cases as frivolous in nature. This is not the case. The Defendant has filed a trademark on an object that does not belong to his cooperation, then attempted to disrupt the business and operations of the plaintiffs.

As to the amount in “quantifiable damages,” the plaintiffs are continuing to suffer the effects of the Defendants actions. Plans of expansion have been forced to a pause. Supply conflicts have increased. This trademark has placed an unlawful strain on the very heart and operations of my clients organizations. The amount requested is the best possible estimate on how to rectify the pain, suffering, and economic losses; that is nearly impossible to accurately sum.

 

[dygyee]

I will be rejecting the motion to dismiss because while the Plaintiff did list fraud as the only claim for relief, they haven't yet explained why they believe the Defendant committed fraud. Secondly the Plaintiff is right when he says there a certain damages that can't be quantified and they have to do their best job to estimate how much money they think they deserve, and it's up to the court to decide whether or not they think the Plaintiff's estimate is reasonable based on the facts of the case, and lastly I do not believe this case is unconstitutional or frivolous.

We will be moving on, and the Plaintiff has 48 hours from now to post their opening statement.

 

[RelaxedGV]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor and Opposing Counsel,

As stated in the filing, the Defendant sent a Cease & Desist to the owners of Lemonade Corp and VerniciaS. The Defendant sent the Cease & Desist in an attempt to shut down the profit these two companies were gaining from selling shulkers filled with items. The Defendant thought a Cease & Desist was valid due to the trademark the Defendant filed over an entire market. Hoardco is not the first company/people to start selling items within shulkers as one of the earlier times of this occurring (with proof) is June 27 2020 on DC Bid (Exhibit D) and so this shows that Hoardco did not come up with selling items within shulker boxes. The Defendant also filed a system under a trademark/copyright by trademarking the system and not the good/service which is in violation of the Intellectual Property Act. The act states that you can trademark a good/service and not a system (Exhibit E) thus making the Trademark void and fraud occurring.

On May 2nd, the Defendant messaged Lemonade Corp owner Olisaurus123 regarding a meeting. After some discussion upon meeting, they met at a Lemonade Corp owner property in the Southwest Business District. Both Owners then discussed the idea of selling items in shulkers which quickly led to the Defendant stating they trademarked the idea. Olisaurus123 then asked for the documentation regarding the trademarked idea and the Defendant gave the provided documentation. Once the documentation had been provided the Defendant then asked that the shulker sell shops to be taken down due to trademarking the idea. Olisaurus123 and the Defendant then argued regarding the trademark and that the Defendant did not come up with the idea. After the arguing the Defendant then left the property to attend to other things. After leaving the Defendant then kept saying “salty” which gained Olisaurus123’s attention as they felt the words were directed towards themself. Olisaurus123 then stated what had happened as a form of a rebuttal and stated “that’s not how trademarks work” which made the Defendant return to the property owned by Lemonade Corp. Then the Defendant found out about Olisaurus123 discussing the trademark system with Trentrick_Lamar.

On the same day (May 2nd), the Defendant then messaged the owner of VerniciaS (Vernicia) on Discord. The Defendant opened talking about the trademark system and how they trademarked an entire idea, Which Vernicia discussed that they don’t think you can trademark an idea already being done by other companies (Article 1 of Exhibit A) which the Defendant showed the acceptance of the trademark done by Trentrick_Lamar. The two then discussed meeting in court over the issue and the Defendant stating they started the system and that the system started and is being done by lots and to check under the DEC. After this Vernicia then stated that you could use this system to claim anything you wanted, which the two then discussed the trademarking of “Veronica’s Diamond Shoes” (article 2/3 of Exhibit A). Vernicia stated that they would discuss the issue with Trentrick_Lamar. Vernicia then messaged Trentrick_Lamar regarding the matter which Trentrick_Lamar stated that trademarks and copyrights are automatically filed and automatically passed and that you couldn’t just claim a lab unless it is something that distinguishes your company along with stating that the shulker system was a legitimate trademark. The two then discussed how copyright worked and what to do about the situation. Vernicia then went back to talk with the Defendant. Which was them arguing over the trademark. Hours later Vernicia received a message from the Defendant about a deal with the shulker system. The deal was that the Defendant would buy the shulkers to then stock their own shop. Vernicia then gave a few last sentences and the discussion ended.

Exhibit D

Exhibit E

Act of Congress - Intellectual Property Protections Act

House Vote: 7-0-0 Senate Vote: 3-0-0 A BILL To Protect Intellectual Property The people of Democracy Craft, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby enact the following provisions into...

www.democracycraft.net

 

[dygyee]

Thank you to the Plaintiff for their opening statement, the Defendant now has 48 hours to post their opening statement.

 

[PiOs67]

Your Honor,
Before to start the defense plea for opening statement, I would like to raise some objections.

Breach of procedure:
I would like to remind the court that any lawyer have to present an evidence that the citizen accepted to be represented by this lawyer. The defense would be happy to know who is representing the concerned moral persons.

Improper evidence
Exhibit C provided by the plaintiff in complaint does not meet the standards of what a credible proof should be. A google doc with a simple copy of the chat do not protect the evidence against possible alterations.
I would thus ask to the court to deliver an injunction to the plaintiff in order to provide a credible proof.

For your consideration,

 

[PiOs67]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

OPENING STATEMENT FROM THE DEFENSE


Your Honor,


This case finds its roots in the Intellectual Property Protection (IPP) Act. This court have to consider the whole issue without being limited by the claims for relief presented by the plaintiff. One question is raised by the plaintiff in this case: Is it possible to trademark a sale system?

I. Selling a shulker filled with items should be considered as trademarked

The IPP act art 3 § 1 gives a clear definition of what a trademark is. The act consider trademark as “recognisable signs, designs, or expressions which identify companies, products, or services”. This extremely wide definition illustrates the will of the legislator to protect any idea found by a company and used for commercial activity. This court can thus consider as trademark any element used by a company and such recognized in the market.

So, why is the shulker system indeed trademarked?
In this case, my client, TheHoardCo, publicly announced on May 2nd the property of the selling system of the shulker filled with items. We need to note that my client was the first to claim this ownership.

Evidence 1: trademark declaration
https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/thehoardco-trademark-registration.12827/

The plaintiffs discuss the application of IPP act in this case, on the first hand because my client was not the first one to use the system, on the second hand because defendant trademarked a system and not a service/good/expression.
However, the legislator does not give any discretion in this piece of legislation. The presence, in this situation, of a system which is recognizable as owned by TheHoardCo, entails automatically the application of the IPP act. What is the company’s logo? A shulker box. What is the description of the company on the business forum? “sell large amounts of items in shulker boxes in a chest for easy pickup”. TheHoardCo is the shulker system, and this is not disputable. I would add that the law do not mention at any time the question of temporality, which totally disqualify plaintiff's argumentation.

Thus, mechanically, the IPP act fully applies in this situation, and all it’s consequences. It seems unfair, we can understand the reactions in the public. However, the will of the legislator have to be respected by this court, and this is not the place to discuss if we can morally accept of no this law. We already have representatives to raise concerns about this law.

II. Absence of prejudice

Moreover, a second question is raised by the plaintiffs in this affair. Is it possible to have financial compensations without prejudice?
Very interesting point of law, which needs to be detailed. To put it in a nutshell, what are the conditions to engage civil liability?

First of all, civil liability needs a prejudice. The plaintiff has the burden of proof to show the existence of a fault committed by the defendant, a prejudice, and a link of causality between the fault and the prejudice.
Once again, the defense already raised this issue in motion to dismiss, the plaintiff do not detail these elements.
The strict application of the IPP act in this situation totally disqualify the fault here. It is strictly impossible to be condemned for using a right granted by the law.

Moreover, a prejudice needs to be actual and certain. In this case, the plaintiff dares to ask in front of this court prayers for relief, and perjured themselves in order to obtain what they want.

Concerning plaintiff LemonadeCo, after some investigations, I can strongly affirm that all Lemonade shops were closed. The discord server of the company presents to customers plenty of available locations for shopping. However, they are all closed or sold. LemonadeHQ, located at c-368/369/370/378/379/380 is currently completely empty, without any shop, until today. A sign was simply announcing “Olisaurus123 will finish this when he back from holiday”.

Spoiler: LemonadeCo situation

Your Honor, we can really ask in this case what the role of LemonadeCo is? I don’t see any. This company, known for regularly suing anyone standing on their path, can’t suffer currently from the seize and desist letter sent by my client. The reason is simple, all their shops were closed for work until today. This company is making profit of the situation to ask money, this company is making fun of justice, this company is showing a great disrespect toward your institution and our time.


Then, concerning the demand formulated by plaintiff VerniciaS, the same question is raising. Can VerniciaS suffer from a prejudice? I visited their shop, your honor, I investigated to put in the spotlight facts that are hidden by the plaintiffs. What VerniciaS is not saying today, is that the company is still currently using the shulker selling system trademarked by TheHoardCo.

Spoiler: Breach of trademark by VerniciaS

PERJURY OBJECTION

A law exist for this kind of allegations, your Honor, and it’s called perjury. Law 15.2 define perjury as follow: “Giving knowingly incorrect testimony to the Government shall be considered Perjury.”

In this case, VerniciaS asked for a prayer for relief but is still using the system. The opposing party representative UtahCowboy, in his motion of rebuttal clearly stated “the plaintiffs are continuing to suffer the effects of the Defendants actions”.

What effects, what pain for this company? Can we reasonably give credit to a person crying in front of this court, asking for benefits, but breaking the law? The plaintiff is clearly contradicting himself for his own benefit.

Can law accept this way of mind? The choice is yours, your Honnor.

Also, concerning the question of punitive damages, I would like to remind the court that this form of payment can only be ordered by a court to punish the defendant for a particularly serious offence, punished by the legislator, in order to give an example to the whole society and prevent any similar behavior. Once again, this claim doesn’t have its place in this case, if there are no fault, there is no prejudice, if there is no prejudice, there is no compensation.

COUTERCLAIM

As a logical result of this argumentation, the defense want to formulate a counterclaim against the plaintiff

• $1000 for legal fees
• $2500 compensation for damages on TheHoardCo image
• The application of IPP act meaning “return of all revenue generated from use of the material to the original owner + reasonable compensation as decided by the courts”

For your consideration,

 

[dygyee]

I hereby find Trentrick_Lamar in contempt of court, and order the DOJ to fine/jail him the proper amount for contempt of court.

 

[UtCowboy]

Your honor, the plaintiff wishes to extend and apology. We had overlooked providing the proof of attorney client agreements. Which I will now provide.

In response to the objection made by the defense.
In regard to Exhibit C, The following screenshots were provided by Olisaurus as they are direct screenshots of a Discord conversation between himself and the defense. Screenshots of discord conversations has always been used as concrete evidence for as long as DC courts have been in effect. The screenshots have been placed into a google slide, for the purpose of maintaining an orderly fashion of presenting the evidence to the court. If, your honor, wishes for additional screenshots, the plaintiff would be happy to provide them.

In response to the perjury objection,
No perjury has been committed. As addressed by, your honor, in the denial of the motion to dismiss, the claims for relief are valid. This movement is a direct insult to the court as it is readdressing an issue that has already received a ruling.

Objections
The defense has made a statement regarding LemonadeCo's "situation," This is irrelevant as well as misleading evidence. Operations for Lemonade came to a temporary halt while Oli was on holiday. Lemonade resumed operations Saturday at 11pm NZT. The defense has stated as fact that "all their shops were closed for work until today," This is a false statement, in addition the screenshots in question were take 7 days ago. The plaintiff moves to have this false narrative stricken and disregarded.

The defense made a statement regarding the normal operations of Vernicias. The plaintiff wishes to object on the grounds of relevance. Vernicias is not on trial here. If the plaintiff wishes to seek legal action against Vernicias it is proper to file a suit of their own. The plaintiff also motions to have this stricken.

Your honor, the defense has not presented an opening statement. This is a rebuttal to the plaintiffs opening statement. The Defense has not presented any fact contrary to the viewpoint of the plaintiff.

 

[dygyee]

I would like to raise some objections.

Breach of procedure:
I would like to remind the court that any lawyer have to present an evidence that the citizen accepted to be represented by this lawyer. The defense would be happy to know who is representing the concerned moral persons.

Improper evidence
Exhibit C provided by the plaintiff in complaint does not meet the standards of what a credible proof should be. A google doc with a simple copy of the chat do not protect the evidence against possible alterations.
I would thus ask to the court to deliver an injunction to the plaintiff in order to provide a credible proof.

Both objections are sustained. I will request that the Plaintiff provide proof of representation, as well as screenshot the chat directly from your logs folder within 48 hours.

We will also move onto witnesses, so both parties have 48 hours to list their witnesses or tell the court that they have none.

 

[UtCowboy]

Both objections are sustained. I will request that the Plaintiff provide proof of representation, as well as screenshot the chat directly from your logs folder within 48 hours.

We will also move onto witnesses, so both parties have 48 hours to list their witnesses or tell the court that they have none.

Your honor, the plaintiff had made an address on the two objections.

 

[dygyee]

Your honor, the plaintiff wishes to extend and apology. We had overlooked providing the proof of attorney client agreements. Which I will now provide.

In response to the objection made by the defense.
In regard to Exhibit C, The following screenshots were provided by Olisaurus as they are direct screenshots of a Discord conversation between himself and the defense. Screenshots of discord conversations has always been used as concrete evidence for as long as DC courts have been in effect. The screenshots have been placed into a google slide, for the purpose of maintaining an orderly fashion of presenting the evidence to the court. If, your honor, wishes for additional screenshots, the plaintiff would be happy to provide them.

In response to the perjury objection,
No perjury has been committed. As addressed by, your honor, in the denial of the motion to dismiss, the claims for relief are valid. This movement is a direct insult to the court as it is readdressing an issue that has already received a ruling.

Objections
The defense has made a statement regarding LemonadeCo's "situation," This is irrelevant as well as misleading evidence. Operations for Lemonade came to a temporary halt while Oli was on holiday. Lemonade resumed operations Saturday at 11pm NZT. The defense has stated as fact that "all their shops were closed for work until today," This is a false statement, in addition the screenshots in question were take 7 days ago. The plaintiff moves to have this false narrative stricken and disregarded.

The defense made a statement regarding the normal operations of Vernicias. The plaintiff wishes to object on the grounds of relevance. Vernicias is not on trial here. If the plaintiff wishes to seek legal action against Vernicias it is proper to file a suit of their own. The plaintiff also motions to have this stricken.

Your honor, the defense has not presented an opening statement. This is a rebuttal to the plaintiffs opening statement. The Defense has not presented any fact contrary to the viewpoint of the plaintiff.

Utah please do not respond when you are not asked to, this is your only warning. Next time you will be charged with contempt of court.

Firstly Exhibit C is not a screenshot, it's a google doc that could have been edited.

Secondly I do not believe that you guys have committed perjury that's why I did not charge you with perjury.

Finally, your objection is denied as the objection on the basis of relevance is only used when it comes to evidence or witness testimony, not for opening statements.

 

[dygyee]

As a reminder the Plaintiff has 48 hours to post proof of representation, as well as resubmit a screenshot of the logs for exhibit c, and both parties have 48 hours to provide their list of evidence or tell the court that they have none.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Your Honor, here are the Representation screenshots and the screenshots from Exhibit C. Everything highlighted is of either Olisaurus123 or Alexthelillion speaking

https://imgur.com/a/vLkDnTM

 

[dygyee]

I'm reminding both parties that they have under 24 hours to provide their list of witnesses, or tell the court that they have none.

 

[RelaxedGV]

the prosecution has no witnesses your honor

 

[PiOs67]

Your Honor,

I would like, once again, to object a breach of procedure.
According to the evidence provided by the plaintiff, it seems that RelaxedGV have been acknowledged as VerniciaS representative, and UtahCowboy as Olisaurus123 representative. However, from the beginning of this case, both lawyers are representing indifferently Olisaurus and VerniciaS.

The plaintiffs' lawyers are clearly in breach of procedure, by representing indifferently two parties who chose two different lawyers. There is no mandate agreement between UtahCowboy and VerniciaS, nor between RelagedGV and Olisaurus.

Moreover, plaintiff provided as evidence the consent given by player Olisaurus123. However, I would like to remind the court that the plaintiffs are LemonadeCo and VerniciaS. Player Olisaurus is not currently representative of the LemonadeCo business, since the company internally demoted this player from the CEO position and attributed the position to player surerkev (see provided evidence). Olisaurus is not entitled today to give assent to anyone to represent LemonadeCo business.

Yet, by the strict application of the court procedure, I request a motion to reconsider your previous ruling concerning the motion to dismiss. The case should now be dismissed for this serious procedural defect.
My client now requests his constitutional right to a fair trial, and a fair trial means a trial respecting civil proceeding rights.

Then, if the court decides to carry on this trial in spite of this obvious violation of the civil proceeding rights of my client, the defense would like to summon as witnesses:
- AlexTheLillion
- Trentrick_Lamar
- KeyboardAlex
- Claxx77

For your consideration,

 

[dygyee]

Before we move on, I will need proof from the Plaintiff that the CEO of lemonadecorp agrees to be represented in court by UtaCowboy, as well as proof that both the CEO of lemonadecorp and vernicas have agreed to have the other companies’ lawyer also represent them. They have 48 hours to do so.

 

[RelaxedGV]

your Honor, Olisaurus123 is still the CEO of Lemonade due to owning the company in game and on the forums making the consent for representing Lemonade still valid.

 

[dygyee]

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

AlexTheLion, Trentrick_Lamar, KeyboardAlex, and Claxx77 are required to appear before the court in the case of the Lemonade Corp and VerniciaS v. HoardCo [2022] FCR 37 as witnesses. Please familiarize yourself with the case as it stands at present. You will receive questions from the Defendant, and may also be cross-examined. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a contempt of court charge.

I am hereby informing each witness to ensure they are aware of the provisions of the law of perjury and its severity. Giving knowingly false testimony is highly illegal. Witnesses are required to tell the truth in their testimonies, pursuant of the Perjury Act.​

 

[Trentrick_Lamar]

Ye I'm here and am acutely aware of what's going on

 

[dygyee]

I will ask that the Defendant holds off on their questions until all the witnesses are present unless otherwise told by the court.

 

[AlexTheLion]

Objection Hearsay

 

[KeyboardAlex]

I'm here but don't particularly see what relevancy I have to said case.

 

[PiOs67]

Your Honor,

I raised an objection concerning a breach of procedure and a motion to reconsider considering the new facts I provided to the court.

Yet, by the strict application of the court procedure, I request a motion to reconsider your previous ruling concerning the motion to dismiss. The case should now be dismissed for this serious procedural defect.

I want the court to answer this question legally.

This trial can't legally keep going considering the seriousness of the breach of procedure. Consent of both Olisaurus and Vernicia have been given yesterday. I would like to remind the court that the legal relation between a lawyer and his clients is a mandate contract. This kind of contract can't have any retroactive effect. The fact that Vernicia and Olisaurus didn't give full consent when plaintiff representative posted the complaint totally discredit this court case, since RelaxedGV was not LemonadeCo representative, and was acting totally independently, and vice versa for UtahCowboy.

Form is not simply a way to make court cases looks better for the public. All proceeding rules set for trials are not there to decorate. This is a shame if a court refuse to enforce them. The process rules state clearly "If you are a lawyer and you have a client who has hired you to represent them in court, there must be evidence provided that the citizen hired you as their lawyer". Yet, opposing parties were two different persons having two different lawyers, but were indifferently represented by both of them, without any consent or attorney-client relation.

Von Jhering said "form is the twin sister of freedom", I trust the will of this court to respect freedom.

Under the rules of procedure, which guarantee the constitutionally protected right to a fair trial, I ask this court to dismiss this case for procedural violations.

Thank you.

 

[UtCowboy]

Your Honor,

I raised an objection concerning a breach of procedure and a motion to reconsider considering the new facts I provided to the court.

I want the court to answer this question legally.

This trial can't legally keep going considering the seriousness of the breach of procedure. Consent of both Olisaurus and Vernicia have been given yesterday. I would like to remind the court that the legal relation between a lawyer and his clients is a mandate contract. This kind of contract can't have any retroactive effect. The fact that Vernicia and Olisaurus didn't give full consent when plaintiff representative posted the complaint totally discredit this court case, since RelaxedGV was not LemonadeCo representative, and was acting totally independently, and vice versa for UtahCowboy.

Form is not simply a way to make court cases looks better for the public. All proceeding rules set for trials are not there to decorate. This is a shame if a court refuse to enforce them. The process rules state clearly "If you are a lawyer and you have a client who has hired you to represent them in court, there must be evidence provided that the citizen hired you as their lawyer". Yet, opposing parties were two different persons having two different lawyers, but were indifferently represented by both of them, without any consent or attorney-client relation.

Von Jhering said "form is the twin sister of freedom", I trust the will of this court to respect freedom.

Under the rules of procedure, which guarantee the constitutionally protected right to a fair trial, I ask this court to dismiss this case for procedural violations.

Thank

Your Honor,

I raised an objection concerning a breach of procedure and a motion to reconsider considering the new facts I provided to the court.

I want the court to answer this question legally.

This trial can't legally keep going considering the seriousness of the breach of procedure. Consent of both Olisaurus and Vernicia have been given yesterday. I would like to remind the court that the legal relation between a lawyer and his clients is a mandate contract. This kind of contract can't have any retroactive effect. The fact that Vernicia and Olisaurus didn't give full consent when plaintiff representative posted the complaint totally discredit this court case, since RelaxedGV was not LemonadeCo representative, and was acting totally independently, and vice versa for UtahCowboy.

Form is not simply a way to make court cases looks better for the public. All proceeding rules set for trials are not there to decorate. This is a shame if a court refuse to enforce them. The process rules state clearly "If you are a lawyer and you have a client who has hired you to represent them in court, there must be evidence provided that the citizen hired you as their lawyer". Yet, opposing parties were two different persons having two different lawyers, but were indifferently represented by both of them, without any consent or attorney-client relation.

Von Jhering said "form is the twin sister of freedom", I trust the will of this court to respect freedom.

Under the rules of procedure, which guarantee the constitutionally protected right to a fair trial, I ask this court to dismiss this case for procedural violations.

Thank you.

Your honor, I would like to make a response to this objection

 

[Claxx77]

I'm here

 

[dygyee]

PiOs67: The objection was sustained, however it isn't grounds for dismissal. I have asked to see proof of representation from both companies to approve of both lawyers representing them in court, and they have provided that. There have been numerous cases where the Plaintiff's lawyer didn't provide proof of representation at the beginning, and have been asked to provide it later in the case before the verdict. I also believe that both companies were aware of, and approved having both lawyers represent them in court long before their lawyers asked them to write a statement agreeing to be represented in court by UtahCowboy20 and RelaxedGV.

UtahCowboy20: Thank you for asking if you could respond to the objection, however at this time the court believes a response isn't needed.

 

[dygyee]

Because all of the witnesses have appeared before the court, the Defendant has 48 hours to provide a list of all of their questions to all of the witnesses.

 

[PiOs67]

I apologize for the delay, I faced some issues with the forum update.

Questions to witnesses:

- To Claxx and KeyBoardAlex:
You are both workers for LemonadeCo,
> for how long was the LemonadeCo shop closed? Why was the shop closed?
> Was any other shop open during this period?

- To Trentrick_Lamar
> Why did the DEC accept TheHoardCo trademark registration? (see evidence below)
> In the discussion provided by the plaintiff (see bellow), you spoke about a "business model". What do you mean through this notion?
> How is the DEC interpreting and enforcing the IPP act in this matter?

- To AlexTheLillion
> What do you want to obtain with this trademark registration?
> Do you want to prevent any use of the shulker system like the plaintiff assume?
> How did this legal action impacted you financially?


Thank you

 

[dygyee]

Thank you PiOs67 for posting your questions. I want to remind you that you must be aware of the time, and that this is your only warning.

The witnesses have 48 hours from now to post their answers to the Defendant's questions.

 

[UtCowboy]

I apologize for the delay, I faced some issues with the forum update.

Questions to witnesses:

- To Claxx and KeyBoardAlex:
You are both workers for LemonadeCo,
> for how long was the LemonadeCo shop closed? Why was the shop closed?
> Was any other shop open during this period?

- To Trentrick_Lamar
> Why did the DEC accept TheHoardCo trademark registration? (see evidence below)
> In the discussion provided by the plaintiff (see bellow), you spoke about a "business model". What do you mean through this notion?
> How is the DEC interpreting and enforcing the IPP act in this matter?

- To AlexTheLillion
> What do you want to obtain with this trademark registration?
> Do you want to prevent any use of the shulker system like the plaintiff assume?
> How did this legal action impacted you financially?


Thank you

Objections

Claxx and KeyBoardAlex

• Objection on ground of relevance, whether or not the lemonade shop was temporarily closed does not address or pertain to TheHoardCo trademarking a “system” that does not belong to them.
• Objection on grounds of speculation, the witness cannot answer a question in regard to another company or organization as it is outside of their scope of reasonable knowledge. In addition an objection on relevance, whether or not other shops have been in operation had no bearing in the trademark issue and is derailing to these proceeding.

Trentrick_Lamar

• No objection
• Objection, assumes facts not submitted into evidence, there is no context to this conversation, nor has it been submitted to the court previously nor verified.
• Objection, leading the witness.

AlexTheLilLion

• No Objection
• No Objection
• Objection, irrelevant, this question does not address the matter at hand as to whether AlexTheLilLion had owned and invented the “shulker system,” the question is meant to garnish the testimony with sympathy.

 

[dygyee]

Objection Responses:

Claxx and KeyBoardAlex:
- The objection to the first question is denied as both the reason for Lemonade closing as well as the length could potentially show how much Lemonade lost in revenue due to this trademark.

- The objection on the basis of relevance for the second question is sustained as this court doesn't see why this question is relevant to the case, as this case is between LemonadeCo, VernicaS, and HoardCo. Not any other company.


Trentrick_Lamar:
- There was no objection to question 1.

- The objection for the second question is denied as this is not one of the permitted objections in the objections guide, however the the court will take into account the lack of context when making a verdict.

- The objection for the third question is also denied as the court doesn't believe that this is a leading question.


AlexTheLilLion:
- There was no objection to question 1.

- There was no objection to question 2.

- The objection on the basis of relevance for the 3rd question is sustained as the financial implications of legal action other than attorney fees are not a valid reason to obtain money from the other party.

 

[dygyee]

Claxx and KeyBoardAlex: Please answer only the first question that you received from PiOs67.

Trentrick_Lamar: Please answer all 3 of the questions that you received from PiOs67.

AlexTheLilLion: Please only answer the first 2 questions that you received from PiOs67.

To all the witnesses: Due to the objections, you will have 48 hours from now to answer the questions that I have told you to answer.

 

[UtCowboy]

Your honor, I apologize , I misworded my objection to Trent's second question. The proper objection would be on the grounds of Improper Evidence. as there is no context.

 

[dygyee]

I will still be denying this objection as there is nothing, in my opinion, that makes this improper evidence.

 

[Trentrick_Lamar]

I apologize for the delay, I faced some issues with the forum update.

Questions to witnesses:

- To Claxx and KeyBoardAlex:
You are both workers for LemonadeCo,
> for how long was the LemonadeCo shop closed? Why was the shop closed?
> Was any other shop open during this period?

- To Trentrick_Lamar
> Why did the DEC accept TheHoardCo trademark registration? (see evidence below)
> In the discussion provided by the plaintiff (see bellow), you spoke about a "business model". What do you mean through this notion?
> How is the DEC interpreting and enforcing the IPP act in this matter?

- To AlexTheLillion
> What do you want to obtain with this trademark registration?
> Do you want to prevent any use of the shulker system like the plaintiff assume?
> How did this legal action impacted you financially?


Thank you

I apologize for the delay, I faced some issues with the forum update.

Questions to witnesses:

- To Claxx and KeyBoardAlex:
You are both workers for LemonadeCo,
> for how long was the LemonadeCo shop closed? Why was the shop closed?
> Was any other shop open during this period?

- To Trentrick_Lamar
> Why did the DEC accept TheHoardCo trademark registration? (see evidence below)
> In the discussion provided by the plaintiff (see bellow), you spoke about a "business model". What do you mean through this notion?
> How is the DEC interpreting and enforcing the IPP act in this matter?

- To AlexTheLillion
> What do you want to obtain with this trademark registration?
> Do you want to prevent any use of the shulker system like the plaintiff assume?
> How did this legal action impacted you financially?


Thank you

1.) The forum lacked an embed that shows a post has been acknowledged except for that, and there existed no prefix that was relevant either. Better said, as a result of forum constraints in real life, it was not possible to do anything other than use an accept embed to show that I am aware of the filing as a way to prevent tickets from being made asking if I have seen a trademark or copyright yet. This is the reason that xEndeavour implemented the "filed" prefix, as evidenced here because we both had a similar idea in mind:

https://imgur.com/C0KLVSc

2.) The business model of Hoard Co is the mass sales of items through shulkers as a means of expanding storage space, with mass implying more than 50% or exclusive.

3.) It is not possible for the DEC to enforce the IPP act, as there are no powers delegated to it through the way it is written. The fact that copyrights and trademarks are automatic prevents the DEC from having any say in the matter, and all we can do is provide a place for people to file their claims to copyright such that they may reference it in court.

 

[KeyboardAlex]

> for how long was the LemonadeCo shop closed? Why was the shop closed?

I started working at LemonadeCo after the shop closed and reopened so I'm not sure on exact time but if I had to guess 3-4 days. It was closed as Olisaurus123 rebuilt the entire building to encourage more sales.

 

[AlexTheLion]

Obtaining this trademark registration hopefully makes me stand out to other bulk businesses as TheHoardCo stands out because of the use of the whole business having items sold in shulker boxes.

To the 2nd question. I did not want the business model of Lemonade nor Vernicas to be fully made on the mass sell of the shulkers in the store as that’s what I’ve become aware and known that I’ve trademarked. I’m aware that people have sold items in shulkers for so long in DC bids, even me bidding and winning these and having no action for them to take down their auction. This trademark was simply my idea of the business model of TheHoardCo fully based on the whole mass selling in shulker boxes.