Lawsuit: Adjourned Steveshat v. wetc [2024] FCR 64

[Unseatedduke1]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION​

steveshat (Represented by Dragon Law)
Plaintiff

v.

Wetc (Agent and Shareholder of Keystone Holdings)
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

steveshat is a man who was having a good time, and tried his luck at several casino games within Keystone Holdings. He deposited over $900k, and when making his last bet before running out of gambling money, he won big: winner winner chicken dinner. To be exact, he won over 1.8 million dollars, doubling what he invested. The casino didn't like this, however, and flat-out refused to award this payout when the plaintiff requested a withdrawal. The reason? Betting limits that should have been there but weren't as a result of the defendant's negligence. The defendant offered the plaintiff a disgusting $265k, a total insult considering this results in a huge net loss. It is time to teach businesses accountability. It is time to get justice for a wronged victim of contract breach.


I. PARTIES
1. steveshat (Plaintiff)
2. Keystone Holdings (Tortfeasor)
3. wetc (Agent and Shareholder of Keystone Holdings)

II. FACTS
1. On February 15th, 2024, steveshat deposited $969,009 into his Keystone Holdings gambling balance that could then be used to gamble, and could be withdrawn for cash at any time (Exhibit A).

2. On the same day, this money was gambled extensively with onlookers commenting on the gambling. To their shock, steveshat won $1,800,000.00 in a game of roulette (Exhibit B).

3. Keystone Holdings refused to pay out the winnings, offering to resolve the matter for a mere $265,000 under the reasoning that there was a max bet of $5,000 in place (Exhibits C and D).

4. Keystone Holdings had no posted policy of a max bet posted as of the 15th of February, 2024. Their gambling bot also did not have the feature of max betting properly configured, leading it to accept a higher bet (Exhibit E).

5. The plaintiff offered for the defendant to pay the 1.8 million dollars (and less in some offers) out overtime in a payment plan to protect their interests, but the defendant denied this request multiple times.

6. Keystone Holdings subsequently dissolved to avoid liability and distributed assets to its former shareholders (Exhibit F).

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The casino receives actual monetary bets in return for the expectation of that money returned on a win. This constitutes a contract under the Foundation of Contract Law as it satisfies all the necessary elements, while maybe not as explicitly as other contracts. Whether or not this legally stands, that expectation still exists and is represented by the casino's posting of odds on specific games. Representing those odds is also backing the outcome of the bet, whether a win or loss. To misrepresent these facts constitutes gambling fraud under the Commercial Standards Act. These odds were misrepresented when the casino refused to compensate the plaintiff his winnings, and thus is grounds for damages under the Legal Damages Act.

2. The two factors described in fact four combine sum up to negligence on Keystone Holdings and no reasonable assumption of any risk by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to his full earnings, and the excuse of a max bet holds no legal water.

3. Keystone Holdings dissolved, leaving liability for its actions to its shareholders. The plaintiff will be using discovery to find out how much liability is attributed to each shareholder and how much money should be clawed back from each. For now, the prayer for relief comprises a total amount of money owed collectively by all of the shareholders.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $1,800,000 in compensatory damages - the duty to mitigate was satisfied as described in fact five of this filing.

2. $50,000 in punitive damages for grossly and outrageously denying the plaintiff his winnings and having the audacity to strongarm and lowball him to a tremendous degree.

3. 5% of $1,800,000 is $90,000 and this would be the monthly interest steveshat would earn if he stored his winnings in banks that offer 5% interest such as Atreides, S-Capital, etc... Therefore, each day of not having this money loses the plaintiff $3,000 in opportunity costs. The plaintiff therefore requests $3,000 each day starting from the 16th of February 2024 until the 1.8 million dollars is finally paid to the plaintiff. At the time of this posting, that total is 51 days = $153,000.

4. $50,000 in loss of enjoyment in Redmont as $1,800,000 can buy a lot of things, things that the plaintiff cannot enjoy for as long as he is denied his winnings.

5. $50,000 in punitive damages for attempting to launder this money by dissolving and distributing it to shareholders / other parties.

6. $585,000 + 30% of the award of prayer for relief 3 in legal fees, awarded to Dragon Law Firm (a recent amendment to the Legal Damages Act increases legal fees to 30%).


V. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: Exhibit A

Spoiler: Exhibit B

Spoiler: Exhibit C

Spoiler: Exhibit D

Spoiler: Exhibit E

Spoiler: Exhibit F

VI. PRELIMINARY WITNESSES
1. steveshat
2. Stoppers

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 April 2024

 

[RelaxedGV]

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

@wetc is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Steveshat v. wetc.

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.​

 

[steveshat]

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

The plaintiff move that Judge RelaxedGV is removed from this case as granted by the court in the initial appeal request.

Thank you

 

[RelaxedGV]

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

The plaintiff move that Judge RelaxedGV is removed from this case as granted by the court in the initial appeal request.

Thank you

I will grant the Motion to Recuse and Judge SumoMC will be Presiding when they are available.

 

[SumoMC]

With the recusal of Justice Relaxed I will be taking over, deadlines are still in effect.

 

[SumoMC]

@wetc is Hereby held in contempt. Court will be in recess pending a public defender.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Your Honor,

The Defendant has only just retained MikamiLaw LLC as their law firm ~2 hours ago.

We'd like to request a 24 hour extension to familiarize ourselves with the case and post a proper Answer to Complaint/ Motion to Dismiss.

Thank you for your time.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[SumoMC]

Your Honor,

The Defendant has only just retained MikamiLaw LLC as their law firm ~2 hours ago.

We'd like to request a 24 hour extension to familiarize ourselves with the case and post a proper Answer to Complaint/ Motion to Dismiss.

Thank you for your time.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

View attachment 43243

Granted

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Steveshat
Plaintiff

v.

wetc
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. We affirm the deposit was placed. We neither affirm or deny the balance could be withdrawn at any time.
2. We affirm the plaintiff's victory. We neither affirm or deny the details stated.
3. We affirm that the full winnings was refused due to the cap.
4. We dispute the configuration of the bot not being proper.
5. We dispute the offers, there is no evidence submitted of such, nor details.
6. We dispute that the company was dissolved in order to avoid liability.

II. DEFENCES
1. According to the Foundation of Contract Law Section 5, any contract must exist in the written format to be legally binding. As no contract was ever signed in between the Plaintiff and Keystone, there is no legal obligation to pay the sum.

2. The odds were represented correctly. The refusal to pay did not stem from the fact that steve had not won, it stemmed from the fact that the bet was illegitimate in the first place. The bot has malfunctioned at the time, and the Plaintiff has failed to prove otherwise as of this moment.

3. To state that Keystone dissolved to avoid paying it's debtors is an incorrect statement. The Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence upon the nature of Keystone's liquidation, and furthermore, liquidation as per the CSA requires debtors to be paid. This does not apply as steveshat is an illegitimate debtor due to a non-existent contract and illegitimate bet.

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 2nd day of May, 2024.

 

[SumoMC]

Court will now enter a 7 day discovery period

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Your Honour,

In light of recent events, MikamiLaw LLC will no longer be providing legal representation to wetc and wetc alone. We have recommended the Defendant seek new legal representation.

Thank you for your time.

 

[SumoMC]

@wetc has 48 hours to inform the court of his new council or request a public defender.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Interrogatory:

1. What percentage of Keystone Holdings did Wetc possess at the time of its dissolution?

 

[SumoMC]

@wetc is herby held in contempt, the DHS is ordered to fine/jail accordingly.

 

[SumoMC]

This case is in recess pending public defender

 

[Unseatedduke1]

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.

 

[SumoMC]

@Avaneesh2008 i need proof of representation for this case

 

[Avaneesh2008]

Proof of Representation

 

[Taelor]

As court clerk, I'm just bumping this thread so it doesn't get burried.

 

[Towloo]

I will be taking over this case as a partner at Dragon Law.

 

[Towloo]

This case is in recess pending public defender

Your honor, this case has been in recess for almost a month now, and no public defenders have been appointed nor contract work even been posted on the R.B.A. discord. My client is constitutionally entitled to a speedy trial, and respectfully requests that a defense be appointed as soon as possible.

 

[SumoMC]

Your honor, this case has been in recess for almost a month now, and no public defenders have been appointed nor contract work even been posted on the R.B.A. discord. My client is constitutionally entitled to a speedy trial, and respectfully requests that a defense be appointed as soon as possible.

Wetc has the right to Representation, we are working on getting a public defender for this case, until such time this case will remain in recess.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Wetc has the right to Representation, we are working on getting a public defender for this case, until such time this case will remain in recess.

Your honor, it has been another month and there is a PD Director. I motion that the Court compel the PD Director to prioritize finding a suitable defense counsel for this case, including himself if needed to preserve the right to a speedy trial.

 

[SumoMC]

Your honor, it has been another month and there is a PD Director. I motion that the Court compel the PD Director to prioritize finding a suitable defense counsel for this case, including himself if needed to preserve the right to a speedy trial.

The Court will be contacting the PDD today.

 

[ko531]

The Court will be contacting the PDD today.

Your Honor I have reviewed this case and was wondering at what part of the trial we are at?

Are we resuming with Discovery or are we moving on to opening statements?

 

[SumoMC]

We will have a 3 day discovery period.

 

[Towloo]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
INTERROGATORY

1) What position did wetc hold at Keystone Holdings?

2) Did he have full power to make any decision on behalf of the company?

 

[ko531]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
INTERROGATORY

1) What position did wetc hold at Keystone Holdings?

2) Did he have full power to make any decision on behalf of the company?

Im just a PD. I dont have any communications with Wetc or any knowledge about Keystone besides this case.

1. Owner I believe, not too sure

2. I have no clue

 

[Towloo]

We will have a 3 day discovery period.

Your honor, the allotted time frame has elapsed

 

[SumoMC]

Plaintiff has 72 hours to deliver their opening statements.

 

[Towloo]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your honor,

May it please the court,

Steveshat's claim for the $1.8 million winnings from Keystone Holdings should be honored for several compelling reasons. Despite Keystone Holdings, managed by its Chief Executive Officer, wetc, refusing to pay out the winnings, their arguments lack merit under both contract law and principles of fairness.

Keystone Holdings' refusal to pay Steveshat is based on an assertion that there was a supposed cap on the bot and a posted maximum bet. However, it has been established that there was no such posted maximum bet nor any limit on the bot. In the absence of clear, posted rules or limits, Steveshat cannot be held responsible for adhering to non-existent or uncommunicated restrictions. Rules must be clearly communicated to ensure fair play, and failure to do so voids their argument.

When Steveshat engaged in betting at the casino, he did so under the reasonable expectation that the terms of the game were as presented. Keystone Holdings allowed the game to proceed without any visible or communicated limitations. Steveshat's reliance on the apparent terms of the game is justified. Denying his winnings based on unposted or arbitrary limits after the fact undermines the principle of fair dealing and reasonable reliance.

Although previous lawsuits against the shareholders of Keystone Holdings were denied, it was determined that the management could be sued for the $1.8 million. This distinction indicates that the responsibility for upholding the integrity of the game and honoring winnings falls squarely on the management. wetc, as the Chief Executive Officer, is directly accountable for ensuring that the terms of the games are clear and that winnings are paid out when earned. By refusing to pay Steveshat, wetc is failing in his duty as the casino's manager.

Steveshat's participation in the game constitutes a contract between him and Keystone Holdings. By engaging in the game, Steveshat fulfilled his part of the agreement by placing bets and playing according to the rules as he understood them. Keystone Holdings, by refusing to pay the winnings, is in breach of this contract. The terms of the game, including the payout of winnings, were implicitly agreed upon when Steveshat placed his bets. The lack of a posted maximum bet or limit further supports this argument.

With the dissolution of Keystone Holdings, the responsibility for outstanding obligations falls on its management. As the Chief Executive Officer, wetc is responsible for settling these obligations, including the legitimate winnings owed to Steveshat. The dissolution does not absolve wetc of this responsibility; rather, it underscores the need for management to ensure that all valid claims are addressed.

In conclusion, Steveshat is entitled to the $1.8 million in winnings from Keystone Holdings. The lack of posted maximum bet or limit, reasonable expectation and reliance, breach of contract, and the dissolution of Keystone Holdings all support his claim. Therefore, wetc, as the Chief Executive Officer, should be held accountable and required to pay Steveshat the winnings he rightfully earned.

 

[SumoMC]

Defense has 72 Hours to give their opening statement

 

[Milqy]

Hello Honorable Chief Justice SumoMC,
Wetc has informed me of this case just a few hours prior of this, and I apologize for the late response to this case. I am still reading up on this case, and I'm asking for an extension on this opening statement.

 

[SumoMC]

72 Hour extension granted.

 

[Milqy]

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

Steveshat (Represented by Dragon Law)
Plaintiff

v.

wetc
Defendant

The defense move that the complaint in this case be dismissed for a number of reasons.

1. 5.12: Lack of Personal Jurisdiction: While Wetc may have been the CEO of Keystone Holdings during the period that this occurred, under the "Commercial Standards act" it clearly states in section 19, subsection 1 "All companies will be considered to be legal entities distinct from their shareholders, board members, or management." This case has already been ruled on as well, previously in the case FCR 27, and while RelaxedGV did not explicitly state with or without prejudice, the motion to dismiss offered in the case that was accepted did state "with prejudice" in the motion.

2. Rule 5.14: Factual Error: There is absolutely zero evidence tied to fact 6 in the Plaintiffs complaint, this is complete conjecture on the plaintiffs part. Keystone Holdings was a very complex company, that was focused around many facets of the economy in Redmont. To put a blanket statement on all of Keystone Holdings, that they would dissolve and commit heinous crimes, is something that can stay in writing.

3. Rule 5.3: The Plaintiffs claims for relief are frankly extortion to the highest degree. The plaintiff is currently asking, based on the prayers for relief, around 3 million dollars. This number has absolutely no real tie towards the case.

4. Rule 5.3: The third claim for relief, same as the one mentioned above, is frankly slander to wetc, and any former Keystone Holdings shareholders. The plaintiff has no basis, or inside knowledge, on why or how Keystone holdings dissolved.

 

[Towloo]

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

Steveshat (Represented by Dragon Law)
Plaintiff

v.

wetc
Defendant

The defense move that the complaint in this case be dismissed for a number of reasons.

1. 5.12: Lack of Personal Jurisdiction: While Wetc may have been the CEO of Keystone Holdings during the period that this occurred, under the "Commercial Standards act" it clearly states in section 19, subsection 1 "All companies will be considered to be legal entities distinct from their shareholders, board members, or management." This case has already been ruled on as well, previously in the case FCR 27, and while RelaxedGV did not explicitly state with or without prejudice, the motion to dismiss offered in the case that was accepted did state "with prejudice" in the motion.

2. Rule 5.14: Factual Error: There is absolutely zero evidence tied to fact 6 in the Plaintiffs complaint, this is complete conjecture on the plaintiffs part. Keystone Holdings was a very complex company, that was focused around many facets of the economy in Redmont. To put a blanket statement on all of Keystone Holdings, that they would dissolve and commit heinous crimes, is something that can stay in writing.

3. Rule 5.3: The Plaintiffs claims for relief are frankly extortion to the highest degree. The plaintiff is currently asking, based on the prayers for relief, around 3 million dollars. This number has absolutely no real tie towards the case.

4. Rule 5.3: The third claim for relief, same as the one mentioned above, is frankly slander to wetc, and any former Keystone Holdings shareholders. The plaintiff has no basis, or inside knowledge, on why or how Keystone holdings dissolved.

Response, your honor?

 

[SumoMC]

Response, your honor?

You may

 

[Towloo]

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

Steveshat (Represented by Dragon Law)
Plaintiff

v.

wetc
Defendant

The defense move that the complaint in this case be dismissed for a number of reasons.

1. 5.12: Lack of Personal Jurisdiction: While Wetc may have been the CEO of Keystone Holdings during the period that this occurred, under the "Commercial Standards act" it clearly states in section 19, subsection 1 "All companies will be considered to be legal entities distinct from their shareholders, board members, or management." This case has already been ruled on as well, previously in the case FCR 27, and while RelaxedGV did not explicitly state with or without prejudice, the motion to dismiss offered in the case that was accepted did state "with prejudice" in the motion.

2. Rule 5.14: Factual Error: There is absolutely zero evidence tied to fact 6 in the Plaintiffs complaint, this is complete conjecture on the plaintiffs part. Keystone Holdings was a very complex company, that was focused around many facets of the economy in Redmont. To put a blanket statement on all of Keystone Holdings, that they would dissolve and commit heinous crimes, is something that can stay in writing.

3. Rule 5.3: The Plaintiffs claims for relief are frankly extortion to the highest degree. The plaintiff is currently asking, based on the prayers for relief, around 3 million dollars. This number has absolutely no real tie towards the case.

4. Rule 5.3: The third claim for relief, same as the one mentioned above, is frankly slander to wetc, and any former Keystone Holdings shareholders. The plaintiff has no basis, or inside knowledge, on why or how Keystone holdings dissolved.

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

1) In cases similar to this one, such as FCR 65, the court’s opinion clearly states,
“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.” Wetc, as CEO, was clearly in a management position.

2) This is an argument, not conjecture, and a very strong one at that. It is subject to the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) as per the Judicial Standards Act, and we believe we can argue that it is more likely than not that Keystone Holdings dissolved to avoid legal repercussions.

3) While the amounts are steep, they are proportional to the compensatory damages. The punitive damages are only 5.3% of the compensatory damages, and the loss of enjoyment is half that. In fact, these prayers are rather low taking the amount of compensatory damages into consideration.

4) Once more, this is an argument that is more likely than not.

 

[SumoMC]

Motion to Dismiss is denied, defense has 48 Hours to submit their opening statement.

 

[Towloo]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION
BREACH OF PROCEDURE

1) The defense has failed to provide their opening statement within the time frame allotted

 

[SumoMC]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION
BREACH OF PROCEDURE

1) The defense has failed to provide their opening statement within the time frame allotted

@Milqy this is your warning, failure to keep up with this case deadlines or having communication with this court will result in the charge of contempt. We will now moving to closing statements as no witnesses were offered during discovery. @Towloo has 72 Hours.

 

[Towloo]

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

1) Your honor, I motion to compel the defense to present their opening statement. Under the constitution, my client is guaranteed a fair trial. Part of a fair trial is adequately preparing for rebuttal of the defense's claims. If the defense doesn't present their opening statement, the plaintiff is put at an unfair disadvantage as we can't prepare for rebuttal arguments.

 

[SumoMC]

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

1) Your honor, I motion to compel the defense to present their opening statement. Under the constitution, my client is guaranteed a fair trial. Part of a fair trial is adequately preparing for rebuttal of the defense's claims. If the defense doesn't present their opening statement, the plaintiff is put at an unfair disadvantage as we can't prepare for rebuttal arguments.

Motion to Compel is denied, timelines are still in effect.

 

[Towloo]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING ARGUMENT

Your honor,

May it please the court,

We have reached the end of this trial, and the evidence before you reveals a blatant injustice against Mr. Steveshat. This case is not merely about a financial dispute; it is about fairness, integrity, and holding those in power accountable for their actions.

Mr. Steveshat deposited over $900,000 into Keystone Holdings' casino and played a single game in good faith. He won over $1.8 million, yet the casino, managed by its CEO wetc, refused to pay him his rightful winnings, offering only $265,000. This amount is a fraction of what he earned and does not even cover his initial deposit.

The defense's primary argument hinges on alleged betting limits. However, we have demonstrated that no such limits were posted or communicated. In the absence of clear rules, Mr. Steveshat played under the reasonable assumption that he was adhering to the terms as presented. Keystone Holdings failed to implement and communicate these rules, and now seeks to penalize Mr. Steveshat for their own negligence. This refusal to pay Mr. Steveshat his rightful winnings is a blatant breach of contract. When Mr. Steveshat placed his bets, a contract was formed between him and Keystone Holdings. He fulfilled his part of the agreement by playing the game according to the rules as he understood them. Keystone Holdings, by refusing to pay out his winnings, has breached this contract.

Furthermore, wetc, the CEO of Keystone Holdings, cannot escape liability by dissolving the company. As established in similar cases, such as FCR 65, the Commercial Standards Act clearly states that while shareholders of a public company are generally not liable for damages incurred by the business decisions of the company, this provision does not apply to shareholders or owners who assume management positions within the company. wetc, as CEO, was in a clear management position and is therefore personally accountable for the company's obligations.

The argument that Keystone Holdings dissolved to avoid legal repercussions is not mere conjecture; it is a strong argument supported by the balance of probabilities. The evidence suggests it is more likely than not that the company dissolved to evade its responsibilities to Mr. Steveshat and other potential claimants. Such actions undermine the principle of fair dealing and cannot be tolerated.

In addition, the amounts we seek in damages are proportionate and justified. The compensatory damages reflect the significant financial loss Mr. Steveshat has suffered. The punitive damages, which amount to only 5.3% of the compensatory damages, are intended to deter such egregious behavior in the future. Furthermore, the damages for loss of enjoyment are modest compared to the overall compensatory damages. These figures are not excessive; they are necessary to ensure that justice is served.

In conclusion, Mr. Steveshat is entitled to the $1.8 million in winnings from Keystone Holdings. The lack of posted betting limits, the reasonable expectation of fair play, the breach of contract, and the dissolution of Keystone Holdings all support his claim. We are not just seeking a monetary award; we are seeking justice and accountability. We ask you to find in favor of Mr. Steveshat and send a clear message that businesses must operate with integrity and honor their commitments.

Thank you.

 

[SumoMC]

Defense has 72 Hours to submit a closing statement.

 

[Milqy]

your honor, i'd like an extension of at least 72 hours. i have alot of stuff going on

 

[SumoMC]

your honor, i'd like an extension of at least 72 hours. i have alot of stuff going on

72 Hour extension granted from the original post.

 

[SumoMC]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
steveshat v. wetc [2024] FCR 64

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. According to the Foundation of Contract Law Section 5, any contract must exist in the written format to be legally binding. As no contract was ever signed in between the Plaintiff and Keystone, there is no legal obligation to pay the sum.

2. The odds were represented correctly. The refusal to pay did not stem from the fact that steve had not won, it stemmed from the fact that the bet was illegitimate in the first place. The bot has malfunctioned at the time, and the Plaintiff has failed to prove otherwise as of this moment.

3. To state that Keystone dissolved to avoid paying it's debtors is an incorrect statement. The Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence upon the nature of Keystone's liquidation, and furthermore, liquidation as per the CSA requires debtors to be paid. This does not apply as steveshat is an illegitimate debtor due to a non-existent contract and illegitimate bet.

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.
3. There was no evidence that there was a bot limit in place provided by the defense, therefore we can not reasonably assume that there was one in place.


IV. DECISION
1. This case is a very old one, some of the key people in this case are no longer active and some have quit all together, with that being said justice still must be served therefore this court hereby rules in Favor of the plaintiff and will grant a modified prayer for relief:

- Wetc is hereby ordered to pay steveshat a total of $500,000, i hereby order the Department of Homeland Security to fine wetc that amount and unfine steveshat the same.

- I hereby order wetc to pay $50,000 in legal fee's to the plaintiff's attorney. This amount will come out of the $500k

The Federal Court thanks all involved.