Lawsuit: Dismissed totemundying v. Virtus Group [2024] FCR 122

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BEDROCKJAVA

Citizen
3rd Anniversary Grave Digger
Irongolem_lawyer
Irongolem_lawyer
Joined
Sep 3, 2021
Messages
5

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


totemundying (Represented by Titan Law)
Plaintiff

v.

Virtus Group
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
In the capacity of the plaintiff's employer, Virtus Group has breached the Employment Contract (Exhibit 1) by failing to pay the plaintiff within the established timeframe. The plaintiff received one payment on the 5th of August (Exhibit 2) and another on the 30th of the same month (Exhibit 3) while not receiving the weekly payments the plaintiff is contractually entitled to. The defendant has also done this to another employee, Inalite, who tendered their resignation on the 29th of August (Exhibit 4)

I. PARTIES
1. Totemundying
2. Virtus Group

II. FACTS

  1. On the 1st of August, the plaintiff signed the Employment Contract.
  2. On the 5th of August, the plaintiff is paid their first weekly payment of $3,000
  3. On the 12th of August, the plaintiff is not paid their weekly payment.
  4. On the 19th of August, the plaintiff is not paid their weekly payment.
  5. On the 26th of August, the plaintiff is not paid their weekly payment.
  6. On the 30th of August, the plaintiff is paid $8,000 by the CEO, Beezer.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The defendant breached the Employment Contract three times; on the 12th of August, on the 19th of August, and on the 26th. This salary is the plaintiff's main stream of revenue, and by leaving the plaintiff without a steady salary for three weeks, the defendant:
  • Left the plaintiff's living conditions in uncertainty
  • Did not allow the plaintiff to expand his Casino business
  • Did not allow the plaintiff to pursue various real estate opportunities
  • Made the Plaintiff unable to gain the interest from the bank account
These claims caused a loss of investment opportunity, loss of enjoyment in Redmont, and emotional distress, as defined by the Legal Damages Act.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. As punitive damages for failing to fulfill and breaching the Employment Contract’s conditions, we ask for $10,000
2. As emotional distress damages we ask for $10,000
3. As damages for loss of enjoyment in Redmont, we ask for $10,000
4. As damage for loss of interest from the bank (compensatory damages), we ask for $5,000
4. As legal fees, which are equal to 30% of the total damages ($10,500)

WITNESS LIST:
Inalite

EVIDENCE:
docs.google.com

totemundying Employment Contract .docx

Employment Contract Virtus Group Virtus Group Employment Contract Prepared by: Dragon Law Firm Distributed to: totemundying Virtus Group CEO v__d Date: August 1st, 2024 Employment Contract: Virtus Group This employee agreement states the terms and conditions that gov...
docs.google.com docs.google.com
1725052192829.png
1725052288894.png
1725054583815.png

PROOF OF CONSENT TO REPRESENT:
Screen Shot 2024-09-01 at 2.59.10 AM.png



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

DATED: This 1st day of September 2024

 
pgyfUC4.png



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

@Bezzergeezer is required to appear before the District Court in the case of totemundying v. Virtus Group [2024] DCR 37 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.​
 

Answer to Complaint


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

totemundying
Plaintiff

v.

Virtus Group
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The defense AFFIRMS that "On the 1st of August, the plaintiff signed the Employment Contract."
2. The defense AFFIRMS that "On the 5th of August, the plaintiff is paid their first weekly payment of $3,000."
3. The defense DISPUTES that "On the 12th of August, the plaintiff is not paid their weekly payment" as the plaintiff was not owed a payment for this week.
4. The defense DISPUTES that "On the 19th of August, the plaintiff is not paid their weekly payment" as the plaintiff was not owed a payment for this week.
5. The defense DISPUTES that "On the 26th of August, the plaintiff is not paid their weekly payment" as the plaintiff was not owed a payment for this week.
6. The defense AFFIRMS that "On the 30th of August, the plaintiff is paid $8,000 by the CEO, Beezer[geezer]."

II. DEFENSES
1. The plaintiff was paid what he was owed, even if some of it was slightly delayed. Per the contract: "The employee shall be paid a weekly salary of $1,000 to 10,000 based on performance." The plaintiff was paid $2,000 for work from the 5th until the termination of the contract (the 11th, will be discussed below). An extra $6,000 was given to generously cover the tardiness as there were issues with the bank, and should be more than enough to cover any expenses for lateness. Per the contract, "pay must be provided within two weeks of the termination of this agreement" which occurred on the 11th. Pay was thus only five days late, which is more than covered by $6,000.
2. The plaintiff is not owed for any work past the 11th as the plaintiff breached the contract on the 11th by breaking the non-compete provision (exhibit D-01). The employment contract states that "during the term of this agreement... the employee will not, directly or indirectly, recruit, solicit, or induce, or attempt to recruit, solicit, or induce any of the company’s employees for work at another institution in the same industry owned by Virtus Group." The plaintiff, who is the employee in this agreement, recruited himself, a company employee, for work at another satirical newspaper, in which media (especially satire) is the primary industry of the Virtus Group. He thus breached the non-compete agreement and voided the contract on the 11th. Even if this argument is not accepted, the $8,000 paid out covers a $2,000 week 2 salary, and a $1,000 weeks 3 and 4 salary plus $4,000 extra. The plaintiff is just trying to be greedy.
3. The plaintiff did not suffer damages as a result of any alleged late payment. In this case (link), evidence shows he had tens of thousands of dollars to put up just to troll people in real estate auctions, so he was not hurting or on the brink of starvation as he may suggest. There are thus no emotional damages. Assuming he was owed payment for all three weeks, he was only owed $3,000. Interest on $3,000 in a 3-week period would not even hit four digits. As for punitive damages, the defense made it right already by paying extra on the 30th. There was also a banking issue, plus the former CEO quit DC so the company got dumped onto new management's lap. There is of course some delay as a result of that.

III. COUNTERCLAIM
The defense will be lodging a counterclaim for $10,500 in legal fees should the defense prevail as that is 30% of the value in controversy. My client is paying counsel $10,500 in legal fees, and should be able to recover that after we win this ridiculous lawsuit.

1726462706208.png

VI. EVIDENCE
1726463483782.png


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

DATED: This 15th day of September, 2024.

 
We will now enter a 3-day discovery period. Once it concludes, the plaintiff will have 72 hours to submit their opening statement, followed by 72 hours for the defense to file theirs.
 
The plaintiff has 72 hours to submit their opening statement, followed by 72 hours for the defendant to submit theirs.
 
Also case moved to FCR for jurisdiction
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your honor, this case is a straightforward one. The plaintiff was entitled to weekly pay, and the defendant did not pay the plaintiff weekly as stipulated in the Employment Contract.

The defendant claims the plaintiff breached the Employment Agreement and was subsequently let go on the 11th. However, the plaintiff continued working past the 11th, and not only was the plaintiff not made aware but Virtus Group continued benefitting from the plaintiff's work.

Additionally, The argument that Plaintiff "recruited himself" is utterly preposterous and holds no legal basis. Recruitment is, by its nature, the act of persuading another person to leave or join a company, this is not something one can do to themselves. At no time did the plaintiff induce any third parties employed by Virtus Group to leave and join any other business venture.

In conclusion, this case has 2 unalienable truths; the plaintiff was owed a weekly pay, and the defendant did not comply with the Employment Agreement by not paying the plaintiff weekly. Both of these facts have already been affirmed by the defense, and any other argument put forth by them are attempts to distract the Court from the defense's own failures in fulfilling the Employment Contract.
 
The Defendant has failed to submit an opening. We will now move into closings. The plaintiff has 72 hours to submit their closing statement, followed by 72 hours for the defendant to submit theirs.
 
As both the plaintiff and defendant have failed to file closing statements, court is hereby in recess pending verdict.
 
Your, Honour we are still awaiting a Verdict.
 
Redmont courts move slower than a snail. We must appoint stronger judges and politicians to clean house of all the unprofessional judges and fix up this bureaucratic and slow system. Pathetic
 
your honour, motion to fire the judge for being unable to sufficiently carry out their job
 

​

​

Motion



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

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

1. The Judicial officer overseeing this case has taken over 7 weeks to give a veridic on this case thus I ask the chief justice to accept this motion so this outrageous breach of my client's rights isn't let go any further.

 
Pandaz8 said:
Redmont courts move slower than a snail. We must appoint stronger judges and politicians to clean house of all the unprofessional judges and fix up this bureaucratic and slow system. Pathetic
Click to expand...
For speaking out of turn, acting unprofessionally, and insulting the previous judicial officer, I charge you with one count of contempt of court.

Now, I will use this occasion to apologise in the name of the Federal Court, your trial was extended way past any reasonable limits. I am now assigned and will deliver the verdict within 24h. Until then, we stand in recess.
 
After careful examination of the proceedings, there are significant problems I ran into when trying to come to a verdict. One must derive the verdict from points of law, set out in a fair and speedy trial - something I found increasingly difficult examining the flow of this case.

  1. As set out in Part IV, Article 33, Section IX "Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial".
  2. This trial's flow violated both parties' rights to a speedy trial, as you have been awaiting the verdict since early October. For two months the court dragged its feet and failed to deliver a legal remedy in due time.
  3. Grave procedural error occurred when the previous judge, Unseatedduke1, failed to notice the Plaintiff's witness list and subsequently failed to remedy that error. No summons was ever produced, thereby violating the Plaintiff's right to call witnesses for cross-examination in a court of law.
  4. As a direct result of Point 3, and failure of Defendant to deliver both Opening and Closing Statement, and of the Plaintiff to deliver the Closing, this Court was greatly compromised when it came to information it had, from which a verdict is to be derived.
With all this in mind, I am not inclined to derive a verdict from a case which was neither fair nor speedy, erring in simple procedural steps. In my eyes, and in the eyes of the Constitution, such a verdict would be without any standing or legal merit.

It is for these reasons that I declare a MISTRIAL and order a repeat of this trial. If the Plaintiff wishes to repeat it, I call upon them to refile this case as soon as possible, as Statute of Limitations will bar you from refiling soon.

Dismissed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top