Lawsuit: Adjourned Steveshat v. Vanguard [2024] FCR 62

Status
Not open for further replies.
Alexander P. Love said:
Objection, your honor. Perjury.

This is not true. A motion to dismiss cannot be entertained on an appeal, which is subtly but dramatically different than what the plaintiff is claiming. This case is not an appeal. The appeal was a separate case.
Click to expand...
Overruled
 
SumoMC said:
Motion to Dismiss is hereby denied and @Alexander P. Love is hereby charged with contempt of court for impeding court proceedings, the DHS is ordered to fine/jail accordingly.
Click to expand...
Ok you know what, impeding court proceedings my ass. I motion to recuse. The presiding judge is the Chairman of a competing bank which constitutes a conflict of interest.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Ok you know what, impeding court proceedings my ass. I motion to recuse. The presiding judge is the Chairman of a competing bank which constitutes a conflict of interest.
Click to expand...
Motion to Recuse denied, the current judge is not a chairman of any bank, nor is that a factor in this case. Keep it civil in my court or you will be held in contempt again.
 
SumoMC said:
Motion to Recuse denied, the current judge is not a chairman of any bank, nor is that a factor in this case. Keep it civil in my court or you will be held in contempt again.
Click to expand...
Your signature says otherwise. I motion for another judge to review the motion to recuse.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Your signature says otherwise. I motion for another judge to review the motion to recuse.
Click to expand...

The signature is out of date, however I will grant your request for another judge to review the motion to recuse.
 
Unseatedduke1 said:
Tortfeasor
Click to expand...

Alexander P. Love said:
Ok you know what, impeding court proceedings my ass. I motion to recuse. The presiding judge is the Chairman of a competing bank which constitutes a conflict of interest.
Click to expand...
Upon further review, I have chosen to uphold Judge Sumo’s decision not to recuse in this matter. Judge Sumo has sworn under oath, and threat of perjury that he is no longer the chairman of any bank, the sole basis for the motion to recuse. I see no reason for the judge to recuse simply because they have not updated their forums signature recently.
 
MrFluffy2U94 said:
Upon further review, I have chosen to uphold Judge Sumo’s decision not to recuse in this matter. Judge Sumo has sworn under oath, and threat of perjury that he is no longer the chairman of any bank, the sole basis for the motion to recuse. I see no reason for the judge to recuse simply because they have not updated their forums signature recently.
Click to expand...
I would like to apologize to the Court for this confusion. I would like to also motion to reconsider the contempt charge as I am only making motions to dismiss as I see them come up. They all have merit despite not being accepted by the Court, so much merit that response was solicited from the defense. Therefore this isn’t obstruction. Furthermore we are in discovery, the appropriate time and place to make such motions as time is already allotted, no process was impeded by me making my meritous motions.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
I would like to apologize to the Court for this confusion. I would like to also motion to reconsider the contempt charge as I am only making motions to dismiss as I see them come up. They all have merit despite not being accepted by the Court, so much merit that response was solicited from the defense. Therefore this isn’t obstruction. Furthermore we are in discovery, the appropriate time and place to make such motions as time is already allotted, no process was impeded by me making my meritous motions.
Click to expand...

Motion to Reconsider is accepted however repeated use of the same motion to dismiss will result in a further contempt charge.
 
Unseatedduke1 said:
Interrogatory:

1. What percentage of Keystone Holdings did Vanguard possess at the time of its dissolution?
Click to expand...
@Alexander P. Love there is an outstanding question to be answered.

My apologies about the delay, discovery has ended the and the plaintiff has 72 Hours to give their Opening Statements.
 
Your honor, the deadline for an opening statement from the plaintiff has passed. I motion to move on to preserve my client's right to a speedy trial.
 
Your honor,

The plaintiff requests and extension to the deadline as my lawyer is currently busy with a program IRL.
We apologize for missing the deadline but kindly ask for this extension due to the nature of the situation.

Thank you
 
steveshat said:
Your honor,

The plaintiff requests and extension to the deadline as my lawyer is currently busy with a program IRL.
We apologize for missing the deadline but kindly ask for this extension due to the nature of the situation.

Thank you
Click to expand...
Objection your honor, breach of procedure. The plaintiff is speaking out of turn and may not request an extension after a deadline has passed. Furthermore, the plaintiff does not represent themselves and is therefore not permitted to speak unless called as a witness.
 
@Unseatedduke1 is hereby held in Contempt, the DHS is to fine/jail accordingly.

The defense has 72 Hours to submit their opening statement.
 
steveshat said:
Your honor,

The plaintiff requests and extension to the deadline as my lawyer is currently busy with a program IRL.
We apologize for missing the deadline but kindly ask for this extension due to the nature of the situation.

Thank you
Click to expand...

You will refrain from speaking in this court without being summoned to do so, should your lawyer need an extension that is their responsibility to request as they have done in other cases.

Further disruptions will be met with being held in contempt.
 
Your Honor, I would just like to notify the court that as I step down from Dragon Law, this case is now being handled by Avaneesh2008 from Dragon Law.
 
Your Honor,

The Defendant failed to file their Opening Statement
 
Apologies, we forgot to state no opening will be submitted by the defense for strategic reasons.
 
Thank you for your patience, @Avaneesh2008 will you still be calling Stoppers and steveshat as witnesses
 
We wish to only call Steveshat to the stand.
 
Avaneesh2008 said:
We wish to only call Steveshat to the stand.
Click to expand...
Objection, your honor. Breach of procedure. No witness list was provided in Discovery therefore no witnesses can be called.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Objection, your honor. Breach of procedure. No witness list was provided in Discovery therefore no witnesses can be called.
Click to expand...

Upon further review, the Court will be sustaining the objection, we will be moving onto Closing Statements. The Plaintiff has 72 Hours to submit theirs to the Court.
 
Your honor, I would like to notify the court that I will be taking over as counsel on this case.
 
Your honor, due to a new conflict of interest I will be recusing myself from this case. I ask the Court be reasonable in permitting the new defense counsel time to acclimate.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Your honor, due to a new conflict of interest I will be recusing myself from this case. I ask the Court be reasonable in permitting the new defense counsel time to acclimate.
Click to expand...
Deadlines are still in effect
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honor, may it please the court,

This case is straightforward. The defense claims there was a maximum bet and a cap on the bot. However, no evidence supports this claim. Exhibit E clearly shows there was no notification of a maximum bet, and the bot had no cap.

For a contract to be valid under the Contracts Act, it must meet the requirements of offer, acceptance, consideration, intent, and capacity. In this case, my client was not informed of any maximum bet, which means there was no acceptance of those terms, and thus no intent to enter into such a contract.

Let's review the facts:

  1. My client deposited $969,009 into his Keystone Holdings gambling account.
  2. There was no notice of a maximum bet, either on the notice board or on the bot.
  3. My client lawfully made a bet and won $1,800,000.
  4. Keystone Holdings refused to pay my client's winnings, citing a breach of an invalid contract.
These facts are clear and indisputable. Keystone Holdings' refusal to pay is based on a contract that is invalid due to lack of proper notification and acceptance of terms. The dissolution of Keystone Holdings further indicates an admission of wrongdoing.

My client, an honest participant, lawfully earned $1,800,000 and has been wrongfully denied this amount. This has caused him to lose potential interest earnings of 5%.

While opposing counsel might argue that under the Commercial Standards Act, shareholders are not responsible for the company's debts, I must remind the court that it has the power to interpret the law. Given that the company owes my client $1,800,000, and due to its dissolution, the shareholders must assume responsibility.

In conclusion, my client acted lawfully and deserves to receive his winnings. I respectfully urge the court to rule in favor of my client and order Keystone Holdings or its shareholders to pay the $1,800,000 owed as well as the interest lost, loss of enjoyment, and punitive damages for the horrendous actions taken by the defendant.

Thank you, Your Honor.
 
Your honor, I would like to notify the court that I will be taking over as lead counsel for the Defense.
 
WhyDoesThisWork said:
Your honor, I would like to notify the court that I will be taking over as lead counsel for the Defense.
Click to expand...

You have 72 Hours to deliver your closing statement
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your honor,

The Plaintiff has failed to prove without reasonable doubt that my client is even involved in the situation in question. As shown in a previous motion to dismiss within this case, my client had not purchased shares of Keystone Holdings until the 7th of March, 2024. The situation in question happened on the 15th of February, several weeks prior.

To add onto this, within the Commercial Standards Act we have:

19 - Additional Rights Granted to Companies
(1) All companies will be considered to be legal entities distinct from their shareholders, board members, or management.
(a) The shareholders of a public company, and the owners of a non-public company will not be liable for any damages incurred by the business decisions of the company they hold shares or ownership in. This provision will not apply to any shareholders or owners who assume management positions in the company.

It clearly states that board members and shareholders are legally distinct from the related company and without liability. Therefore, any claim of assuming the company’s liability simply due to being a shareholder is invalid.

To conclude, the consequences for everyone would be significant if shareholders were personally liable for a company's debts and obligations, especially if volume and date purchased are disregarded.
 
Court is hereby in recess pending verdict
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Steveshat v. Vanguard [2024] FCR 62

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. Steveshat won $1,800,000 from a game of Roulette in the Keystone Holdings Casino,
2. Keystone Holdings refused to pay the full 1.8 Million because they claimed the max bet was $5,000.
3. Keystone Holdings Liquidated and divvied out assets to the Shareholders.
4. Liability falls to the shareholders after they company dissolved.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The Defendant did not own shares of the company at the time of the incident.
2. As a shareholder, they did not hold a management position so they can not be held liable under the Commercial Standers Act.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. The Commercial Standards act says "
19 - Additional Rights Granted to Companies
(1) All companies will be considered to be legal entities distinct from their shareholders, board members, or management.
(a) The shareholders of a public company, and the owners of a non-public company will not be liable for any damages incurred by the business decisions of the company they hold shares or ownership in. This provision will not apply to any shareholders or owners who assume management positions in the company." This outlines that Shareholders of a public company do not liable for any damages incurred by the business decisions of the company, even if they hold shares in the company unless they assume management positions within the company.
2. Now we need to define what a management position is. Well now we need to turn to the Oxford Dictionary which says "Organization, supervision, or direction; the application of skill or care in the manipulation, use, treatment, or control (of a thing or person)" Now when it comes to vanguard they made a management decision, but don't hold a position that makes them constantly running or controlling a business. So we have now established that they do not hold a management position and can not be Liable.


IV. DECISION
1. The Federal Court hereby rules in favor of the Defense.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top