Lawsuit: Adjourned Walmart co. v. Olisaurus123 and Montilou [2022] FCR 13

[PiOs67]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Walmart Co (Crusaders at law representing)
officially registered by Redmont Department of Education and Commerce
Plaintiff

v.

Olisaurus123 and Montilou
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
The players Olisaurus and his associates specifically has been targeting many businesses, but Walmart specifically in an incredibly malicious and damaging way.
cjcroft, co-owner of Walmart Co. received a message from the defendant telling me to join the server and check the /cm balance for Walmart, the defendant then repeated the statement and eventually said that they had sold products to the Walmart balance via a closed store that was in construction surrounded by a massive 5 block high wall circling the literal half built store (very evident that it wasn’t open for sales or purchases). Defendant sent to cjcroft screenshots of a method that bankrupted Walmart Co. and caused $16,745.15 in losses which was done by reselling from the brand Walgreens via the site. This malicious activity resulted into Walmart Co. in-game disband, and deactivation of all company chest shops. It is clear and factually qualified, that the defendant drove these malicious activities in order to capture Walmart Co., and take control of all whole company inventory.


I. PARTIES
1. Cjcroft (co-owner of Walmart co.)(plaintiff)
2. sergecool (co-owner of Walmart co.)(plaintiff)
3. Olisaurus123 (defendant)
4. Montilou (defendant)

II. FACTS
1. The defendant and his associate illegally trespassed in a closed shop located on plot c-054 owned by co-owner of company cjcroft. The chest shops have been used to sale $16,745.15 worth of items.

Spoiler: Transaction

2. The transaction has been maliciously driven, in order to provoke the company in-game disband. The defendant replaced original Walmart Co. registered in DEC sub forum, with a false Walmart company.

Spoiler: proof false company

3. Defendant violated the Protect Intellectual Property Act by impersonating Walmart co. and trying to register it on forum using recognizable signs and designs.
official Walmart registration: https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/walmart-co.6976/

Spoiler: false declaration in spite of official Walmart registration

4. Defendant admitted driving these malicious activities in order to take control of all Walmart co. inventory stored into company chest shops. This attempt to obtain illegally a part of the company’s assets have been driven in violation of article 10.1 of the Redmont Code amended by the fraud definition amendment act.

Spoiler: proof discussion with Trentrick

5. This operation leaded to closure of all Walmart shops on Sunday, January 30th due to deactivation of all company chest shops, damaging company reputation and nearly dropped the company value, and worried company’s shareholders. This massive attack has been leaded in order to deflate artificially Walmart value, and make it loosing market shares, profiting to Walmart concurrent the Lemonade Group, hold by defendant, in violation of article 11.2 of the Redmont Code.

Spoiler: discussion with shareholders, #business advert announcements and press articles

Discord - A New Way to Chat with Friends & Communities

Discord is the easiest way to communicate over voice, video, and text. Chat, hang out, and stay close with your friends and communities.

discord.com

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Foundation of Contract Law Act article 6 §1 and §2
“(1) A contract must begin with an offer, this is a unequivocal statement of terms on which you are prepared to do business
(2) It cannot be vague or ambiguous”

2. Protect Intellectual Property act
article 3 “Automatic trademark shall exist for recognisable signs, designs, or expressions which identify companies, products, or services.”
Article 3 ter §1 and §2 “(1) An individual/entity is guilty of Breaching Trademark when they engage in one or more of the following:
- Producing or replicating recognisable signs, designs, or expressions which identify a company, product, or service.
- Impersonating or using recognisable signs, designs, or expressions which identify a company, product, or service.
(2) The punishment for breach of trademark shall be the return of all revenue generated from use of the material to the original owner + reasonable compensation as decided by the courts.

3. Fraud Definition Amendment act:
Article 3 “A dishonest or illegal scheme of successfully obtaining or attempting to obtain something of value.”

4. Corporate Crimes Act:
Article 5 §1 “Market Manipulation: Any act to artificially inflate or deflate the value of a company or stock for personal gain.”


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The unconsented transaction should be declared as null and void. $16,745.15 will return to Walmart Co. All sold items will be returned to the defendants.
2. $900 per day of closure of Walmart locations starting on January 30th
3. $500 for legal fees
4. $200 as emotional distress
5. $1000 for damages on Walmart reputation and stock value

V. Witnesses
1. Trentrick_Lamar
2. Teunt
3. Mercuryellow
4. Xer
5. DEC secretary Thritystone
6. Airco

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 4 day of February 2022

 

[PiOs67]

Crusaders at law as authorized representative

 

[nnmc]

To the Plaintiff’s Counsel:

When you say “Olisaurus123 and associates,” who are the associates you are referring to? I understand that you wish to keep the lawsuit title short by using the term “and associates,” but I do need a full list of defendants provided in order to issue a summons.

Section I of your filing, which lists out the parties, does not indicate the role of each listed person. I would infer from your evidence that Olisaurus123 and Montilou are intended defendants. However, I do not see the involvement of sergecool anywhere even though he is listed as a party.

Would you please inform the court of why Sergecool is listed as party to this case? Would you also please reply with the full list of defendants?

 

[PiOs67]

Good evening your honor,
I brought some clarifications to my post. My apologies if I get you confused.
I hope I have informed the court sufficiently.

 

[nnmc]

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

@Olisaurus123 and @Montilou is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Walmart Co v Olisaurus123 and Montilou.

Failure to appear within 48 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.​

 

[Olisaurus123]

I am present, Your Honor.

 

[Montilou]

I am present, Your Honor.

 

[Montilou]

Would it be possible to have an extension to get in contact with a lawyer?

 

[nnmc]

I will grant you both an extension of 24 hours from the original deadline.

You may choose to each be represented by a different lawyer/law firm, or you may choose to both be represented by the same lawyer/law firm.

 

[Montilou]

Your Honor, I will be representing myself in this suit, separately from Olisaurus123.

 

[Montilou]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Walmart Co (Crusaders at law representing)
officially registered by Redmont Department of Education and Commerce
Plaintiff

v.

Olisaurus123 and Montilou (Seperate lawyers representing)
Defendant(s)

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

1. Looking at fact #1, which is the only fact that I'm directly involved in, we can see that I'm being accused of illegally trespassing onto Walmart property, and then abusing one of their chestshops to sell $16,745.15 worth of items. Firstly, there was not a single "No Trespassing" sign anywhere on the premises. Yes, the building was an active construction site, but there were massive holes in nearly every single wall, and some on the roof, leading to extremely easy access into the building. It was impossible for me to have trespassed if there was no "No Trespassing" signs anywhere. Note that some were added shortly after, but they didn't exist at the time of the sales.

2. Assuming that "The Defendant" is referring to Olisaurus123, I'm not involved in this fact. However, as the screenshot in fact 1 shows, even at the time, we both knew that we weren't selling these items *because* the company behind the chestshops was Walmart. We sold them the items because the price was incredibly good. As for replacing the company, that was not my decision, nor was it me who created the forum post, nor the company in-game.

3. Facts 3 and 4 don't have anything to do with me, but fact 5 directly attacks the company I own 50% of, so here is my statement regarding that fact: As mentioned previously, these sales weren't made with malicious intent. The closure of Walmart stores wasn't a direct product of our actions, rather they were a biproduct of them, considering the fact that the reasoning Walmart gave for the closures was "due to deactivation of all company chest shops", which they could have re-activated had they replaced the signs. As for damaging the company's reputation, and dropping their value, that is not the fault of neither Olisaurus123, nor myself. It isn't your customers' responsibility to make sure that they don't drop your company value by selling you items, it is your responsibility to make sure they're not able to when using your shop, or at least, not permanently.

DATED: This 7th day of February, 2022

 

[nnmc]

The plaintiff has 48 hours to either respond to the motion to dismiss by Montilou or state that they do not wish to respond.

This court still awaits a response from either Olisaurus123 or their legal representative. That is due in less than 12 hours.

 

[PiOs67]

OBJECTION: BREACH OF PROCEDURE
Your honor,
The defendant is presenting in front of this court a “motion to dismiss”. However, it is clear that Montilou is not arguing legally on alleged facts, but answering directly to the plaintiff’s complaint with unproved facts. Considering the courts rules and procedure, the defendant should answer with a motion of dismiss only if he ‘believes that the case is inaccurate and/or frivolous’.
In this case, Montilou is not arguing the dismissal of this case, but is arguing against the complaint with new facts, based only on his words, while he should support the burden of the proof to establish this argumentation.

I’m asking thus the overruling of this motion, and a presentation of a proper answer to complain.

 

[nnmc]

Objection is overruled because by the precedents of numerous cases, an improper motion to dismiss is not generally considered a breach of procedure. Instead, if the plaintiff believes that the motion to dismiss is not proper, they should provide a Response to the Motion to Dismiss explaining such.

 

[nnmc]

Would the plaintiff please re-present their objection, but in the form of a response to the motion to dismiss?

 

[Olisaurus123]

The plaintiff has 48 hours to either respond to the motion to dismiss by Montilou or state that they do not wish to respond.

This court still awaits a response from either Olisaurus123 or their legal representative. That is due in less than 12 hours.

Your Honor, I am requesting another 8 hours from the current deadline as my lawyers completely stopped responding and didn't help enough to make a statement this time will give me enough time to get home and represent myself with an opening statement, or get another lawyer to help with a statement during the time granted.
Thank you

 

[TpersonH]

Your honour I would like to request an extension of 24 hours as Montilou was originally being represented by us and he withdrew. Due to this we have to review and redo our statement.

 

[nnmc]

Your client Olisaurus123 requested 8 hours and you have requested 24 hours. Given that the deadline has already been extended 24 hours, I will reject the request for another 24 hours.

Instead I will grant an extra 12 hours.

 

[Olisaurus123]

Your client Olisaurus123 requested 8 hours and you have requested 24 hours. Given that the deadline has already been extended 24 hours, I will reject the request for another 24 hours.

Instead I will grant an extra 12 hours.

Your Honor, will I need to reply with an opening statement in the next hour to not forfeit?

 

[nnmc]

I will offer you and your legal team some flexibility, this time. I know I said only 12 hours extension but clearly that wasn’t good enough for your legal team. So no, you do not need to make an opening statement in the next hour.

In the future, please consult with your lawyers before requesting an extension so that you know how much time to request.

A FINAL extension is granted for another 12 hours. After that, the court must move on.

 

[Olisaurus123]

I will offer you and your legal team some flexibility, this time. I know I said only 12 hours extension but clearly that wasn’t good enough for your legal team. So no, you do not need to make an opening statement in the next hour.

In the future, please consult with your lawyers before requesting an extension so that you know how much time to request.

A FINAL extension is granted for another 12 hours. After that, the court must move on.

Your Honor.
After being informed about public defenders, I am requesting a public defender, if denied I will represent myself before my extension expires.

 

[Olisaurus123]

I apologize, Your Honor, I withdraw from requesting a public defender, either my lawyer will represent me, or in the case of extension running out, I will represent myself.
Thank you.

 

[Magills0819]

Your Honour, I will be taking over this case from TpersonH. Despite discussion of an opening statement here, I cannot see an answer to complaint or motion to dismiss for Olisaurus, only Montilou. Should not I make an answer to complaint or motion to dismiss before opening statements?

 

[Magills0819]

Consent for Representation

 

[PiOs67]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION OF REBUTTAL AGAINST DEFENDANT MONTILOU

Walmart Co (Crusaders at law representing)
officially registered by Redmont Department of Education and CommercePlaintiff

v.

Olisaurus123 and Montilou (Seperate lawyers representing)
Defendant(s)

Your Honour and opponent party,

Defendant Montilou is pleading that he is only involved in the fact no. 1. I’ll prove the perjury in this allegation. The court could also note the absence of the mandatory statement “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” in Montilou motion to dismiss.

1. Considering the defence provided by Montilou, the defendant clearly admits the fact that he trespassed on plot C-054 by describing very precisely the plot and how he gets into it. However, through the application of the SLATT act, the trespassing offence is defined in this way: “To enter or be in a place without the consent of the owner or management of the place”.

According to this piece of legislation, a sign stating “No trespassing” is not mandatory to qualify an unconsented presence on a plot as trespassing. In this case, the presence of both signs stating “Walmart Capitol COMING SOON” in front of closed doors, and a massive 5 block high wall circling an half-built store (evidences 1 and 3) show clearly the will of the owner cjcroft, to prevent any presence on this plot. The only way to enter this plot was to cross a locked door (evidence 2).

Moreover, the defendant is arguing once again in contradiction with the provided evidence 1, 2 and 3, stating that other signs have been added after the sale, or that there were holes in the walls. A court should not be satisfied with simple words, and such an allegation should be properly proved.

In application of the SLATT act, and considering the provided evidence, defendant Montilou has thus to incur his civil liability in front of this court.


2. First of all “the defendant” is referring to the defendant party, and the plaintiff called both Montilou and Olisorus in front of this court. Montilou can’t use this misinterpretation to prevent the court from engaging his liability.
Then, the defendant is basing his argumentation on the idea that the initiative of replacing the Walmart company on forum was not his decision, and should thus not be responsible of this malicious activity.

we weren't selling these items *because* the company behind the chestshops was Walmart. We sold them the items because the price was incredibly good.

that was not my decision

However, defendant Montilou admitted that he drove this action with Olisaurus through the use of the subject “we” in his sentence. He clearly attests the collusion between Olisaurus and him in this affair. Defendant is, once again, basing his allegations on words, without any evidence to counter the body of evidences provided by the plaintiff. The fact that Montilou provoked with Olisaurus the bankruptcy of Walmart by $7.093 of unconsented sales (evidence 5), that Montilou is co-owner of Lemonade Co., — a Walmart direct concurrent — at 50% with his co-defendant, the fact that Montilou attacked Walmart because of its provoked weakness (see provided evidence), that defendant Montilou admitted in a discussion with witness Mercuryellow his participation in this activity, are proved and eloquent enough to prevent this court from dropping all charges against defendant Montilou.

3. Moreover, the defendant is attacking shameless the integrity of the complaint, as he accused the plaintiff of attacking Lemonade Co. owned 50/50 by both Montilou and Olisaurus. Actually, the plaintiff didn’t drove the parallel through hazard, but based his allegations on ads for Lemonade Co. made by Montilou, attacking directly Walmart (see provided evidence).
However, it seems necessary to precise why the plaintiff didn’t attack directly Lemonade Co. I would like to light the court’s appreciation. The plaintiff would like to attack the action of the managers of the society, drove in their own name and for their personal interest, rather than the society itself, who did not act in its name in this affair.
All these provided evidences clearly show the collusion between both defendants in this case, and the will of defendant Montilou to dismiss this case at any cost, even through perjury.

3.

The closure of Walmart stores wasn't a direct product of our actions, rather they were a biproduct of them

Biproduct or direct product, the defendant may interpret it the way he wants. However, the facts have been proved, that the fault he did by bankrupting Walmart had direct consequences on in-game disband of the company, and thus deactivations of chest shops. A fault which has damaging consequences on somebody should incur the civil liability of the defendant.

The plaintiff will also add that changing the name of the chests couldn’t be a possibility, as the plaintiff have been known and registered as “Walmart company” and did not have at any time to adapt his company name to a malicious attack driven by the defendant Montilou and Olisaurus.

4. Finally, the plaintiff would like to comment this statement: “it is your responsibility to make sure they're not able to when using your shop, or at least, not permanently” Indeed, the defendant is right, and Walmart is totally conscientious of these risks. However, Walmart Co. took all its precautions to prevent anybody from using the chest shops in question. The defendant was not supposed to use them, since they were located on a closed plot. The transaction has been driven in violation of the foundation of contract law act, as the offer was inexistent (see the complaint claim no. 1). This transaction should be made null and void. It is thus hisresponsibility to repair the damages he caused with his action.

 

[nnmc]

Should not I make an answer to complaint or motion to dismiss before opening statements?

My apologies. What I intended to say was an answer to complaint or a motion to dismiss. We are not yet at the opening statements stage of the trial.

I’ll prove the perjury in this allegation.

The perjury objection is overruled because the defendant Montilou only claimed that he was only directly involved in Fact One. This is different than Montilou claiming that he was not at all involved in Facts 2-5.

MOTION TO DISMISS

The motion to dismiss for Montilou is overruled because the plaintiff's case does not appear to be frivolous or inaccurate in a way that would merit dismissal.

and such an allegation should be properly proved.

I will point out that the burden of proof falls on the plaintiff. While the defense may provide proof/evidence as well, it is ultimately your burden to provide the proof for your allegations against the defense.

 

[nnmc]

Once Olisaurus123's lawyer provides the motion to dismiss or answer to complaint, I will respond to that as necessary. After that, I will provide instructions for the opening statement phase of the trial.

 

[Magills0819]

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Walmart Co.
Plaintiff

v.

Olisaurus (Lovely Law Firm Representing)
Defendant

1. Answer to Complaint

(Numbers reference the claims made in the Plaintiff’s Facts section)

1. Disputed. Law 13.6 Trespassing clearly states that in order to be trespassing, you must either receive a “minimum of two warnings” or there to be “a sign”. At the time, there was no sign and no warnings were given.
2. Disputed. Our client merely wanted to sell products, and did not know or intend for the company to disband.
3. Disputed. Because: 1) No Cease and Desist letter was sent, as is required by law (Act of Congress - Intellectual Property Protections Act). 2) We contend that the trademark protection no longer existed due to the company being disbanded in-game.
4. Disputed. What we contend this evidence shows is our client is realising that he has access to the shop chests, which means he can’t have “driv(en)” these acts to be able to access the chests, because he did not know he would gain access, and what’s more, he was attempted to act lawfully, asking whether he could take out the items.
5. Disputed. We dispute the use of the word attack, since our client merely sold products at a ship where there was no sign informing him not to do so. We also dispute that our clients was “lead … in order to” do anything other sell products. As such, we also dispute that there was a violation of Law 11.2. We do agree however, that the company in-game closed, seemingly permanently.

 

[nnmc]

Now that both defendants have responded to the case, we shall proceed to opening statements.

Everyone has 48 hours from now to provide their opening statement. There should be 3 opening statements provided in total: one will be from @PiOs67 for the plaintiff, one will be from @Montilou who is self-representing, and one will be from @Magills0819 for the defendant Olisaurus123

 

[PiOs67]

OBJECTION: perjury

Your Honor,
It seems that the defendant is voluntarily hiding the truth to the court.

Olisurus drove obviously this activity in order to have access to Walmart inventory and damage its reputation, as stated by the defendant in chat.

We also dispute that our clients was “lead … in order to” do anything other sell products.

We do agree however, that the company in-game closed, seemingly permanently.

Also, by answering to this chat ad, the defendant clearly knew that the company closure was not permanent.

 

[Montilou]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Walmart Co (Crusaders at law representing)
PLAINTIFF

v.

Olisaurus123 and Montilou (Seperate lawyers representing)
DEFENDANT

OPENING STATEMENT

1. Law 13.6 - Trespassing "To enter or be in a place without the consent of the owner or management of the place; to remain in the place after being requested to leave (minimum of two warnings or a sign) grants the owner legal authority to initiate PvP provided they can prove that the trespasser was warned."
There were no warnings anywhere that Plot c-054 was not to be entered. This shouldn't even be surprising to the defendant, as he already knew this going into this lawsuit (see screenshot below). Evidence that there was no warnings anywhere will also be attached below.

2. Law 17.11 - Breach of Copyright "Copying an individual's work, reproducing an individual's work, distributing copies of an individual's work, and any other breach as defined in the act.
Per Offence: The return of all revenue generated from use of the material to the original owner + reasonable compensation as decided by the courts."
The in-game company was up for approximately 20 minutes, and was taken down as soon as we heard that the Walmart forum registration already existed, just not on the business portal (see screenshot below). The business portal is where we thought every business was meant to be registered, but we learnt shortly after creating the forum post that Walmart had already registered, just elsewhere. We took both the company, and the forum post down before cjcroft ever logged onto the server, so take that as you will, but personally, those actions don't sound like the actions of people who are maliciously trying to get a company disbanded in order to deflate their value, steal their stock, and steal their company. We made $0 during the brief period that we owned the Walmart company, and we didn't mean for any harm to their company with our actions.

3. Law 10.1 - Fraud "A dishonest or illegal scheme of obtaining something of value."
The "evidence" used to support the claim that we committed fraud was a question that was asked by Olisaurus, out of genuine curiosity. If we really did intend to commit fraud, why would we have asked somebody for permission first? To see if it was allowed? We had access to the majority of the company chest shops, and yet 0 items went missing. We didn't intend to, nor did we commit fraud.

4. Law 11.2 - Market Manipulation "Any act to artificially inflate or deflate the value of a company or stock for personal gain."
There is 0 proof behind this claim. All we did was sell them items in terms of altering company value. We have never invested in Walmart stock, therefore it makes no sense that we could benefit from their stock taking a hit.

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 11th day of February, 2022

 

[PiOs67]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Walmart Co.
Plaintiff

v.

Olisaurus and Montilou
Defendant

Your Honor and opponent party,

All this case finds its roots in the violation of the FCL act. Claim no 1 clearly states that a contract must begin with a clear offer. In this case, the offer did not exist, or was at least uncertain, since landlord cjcroft clearly showed his will to prevent any trespass on his property (evidence for fact no1) by surrounding his plot by 5 block high walls. The chest shops have been used without the consent of the owner.
By the application of this piece of legislation, this unconsented transaction has to be cancelled.

The court is also confronted today to a false interpretation of the SLATT act. This law is very clear concerning trespassing: the only aim of warning or signs consist into granting the owner legal authority to initiate PvP. “To enter or be in a place without the consent of the owner or management of the place” is sufficient to characterize a trespassing offence.
In this case, the walls surrounding the property (evidence for fact no1), show clearly the will of the landlord. I’ll call
there to common sense. Is a hole in a roof or in a wall of the building beyond a 5 meters high barrier a sign of consent from the landlord to let anybody in? Are visitors supposed to enter from the roof? Indeed, there was not any ‘no trespassing’ sign. But is it a defence for a burglar who broke onto a property through an opened window or roof?
Admitting that a landlord should put clear signs rather than a wall to prevent the trespassing on his property will counter the will of the legislator when he created this act, and will create a dangerous precedent, which could jeopardize the property right.

Moreover, this unconsented transaction is a fault, which leaded to dramatic consequences. Both defendants were involved in this transaction (evidence fact no 1) and leaded together to the disband of the company. The link between this action and its consequences is very clear, since the disbanding of the society leaded to disablement of all company chest shops. The closure of Walmart stores impacted the value and the reputation of the society (see press article linked in evidence for fact no 5) This damage has to be repaired by both defendants.

The disbanding of the society in game does not allow the creation of another company, owned by another person. Walmart have been officially registered on DEC sub forum (link bellow fact no 3) and give thus to cjcroft the full right on this trademark. The defendants have been also warned several times by DEC officers for such actions, and was totally aware of the procedure since they own the Lemonade group, registered in DEC. I’ll also precise that the ignorance of the law is never a receivable defence.
Admitting that somebody is allowed to create in game a company which have been already registered by another person could create a dangerous precedent and bring instability to our weakened economy.

In a nutshell, this case is not about two persons wanting to sell their products to make money, but about an odious attempt to weak a concurrent company by selling it $16,745.15 worth of supplies in an unconsented transaction, causing the disbanding of the company. Curiously both defendants created the company in-game and published ads on the forum for their copied Walmart at the same moment. Coincidence? My client doesn’t think so. Defendants clearly acted to take control of all Walmart inventory and damage the reputation of this company. However, it is indeed very hard to prove in front of a court a malicious intention, but witnesses will bring all the light on this affair.

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 11 day of February 2022

 

[nnmc]

OBJECTION: perjury

This objection is overruled because no fundamental facts have been misrepresented to a degree that could be considered perjury.

 

[Magills0819]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OPENING STATEMENT


Your Honour, opposing counsel,

This case is not about whether or not Walmart had to close, or even if our client was responsible for whether Walmart had to close, these facts are not in dispute. What is at issue in this case however, is whether our client acted unlawfully. This court cannot compel my client to pay for damages unless they find that he acted unlawfully. So what will we show in regards to whether our client’s actions were lawful?

Firstly, we will show that our client did not trespass on plot C-054.

Secondly, we will show that our client did not unlawfully use the freely-available chest-shop on C-054.

Thirdly, we will prove that our client did not violate copyright, nor receive a Cease and Desist letter.

Fourthly, we will prove that our client did not aim “take control of all Walmart co. inventory stored into company chest shops” or force it out of business, or have prior knowledge he would force Walmart Co. out of business.

Fifthly, we will prove our client did not engage in market manipulation.

Thank you.

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 11th day of February 2022

 

[nnmc]

Thank you everyone for your opening statements. We will now proceed to witnesses and testimonies.

You all have 24 hours from now to inform the court if you have any witnesses to call, or to state that you have no witnesses.

 

[PiOs67]

Your Honor,
I would like to call the following persons to the bar:
1. Trentrick_Lamar
2. Teuntje1234567
3. Mercuryellow
4. xerxesmc
5. Thritystone
6. Airco

 

[Magills0819]

We would like to call Olisaurus and Vernicia.

 

[Montilou]

Your Honor,

I have no witnesses to call to the bar.

 

[Trentrick_Lamar]

Pardon my informality since I'm unfamiliar with the court process but yeah I'm here

 

[xerxesmc]

I am present and have familiarized myself with the case.

 

[nnmc]

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

@Trentrick_Lamar @Teuntje1234567 @Mercuryellow @xerxesmc @Thatsushidude @A__C @Olisaurus123 @Vernicia is required to appear as a witness before the Federal Court in the case of Walmart Co v Olisaurus123 and Montilou. Please familiarize yourself with the case as it stands at present. You will receive questions and may also be cross-examined.

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.

Once the witnesses have been questioned, the opposing party will have the opportunity to cross-examine.
​

 

[nnmc]

Once 48 hours have elapsed, I will issue instructions for how witness questions will work. Given the high number of witnesses and the fact that we have 3 legal representatives instead of the usual 2, I ask everyone to be patient and understanding. For now, I would just like each witness to state that they are present; no questions are to be asked yet by any of the legal representatives.

 

[A__C]

Your Honor, I am here.

I am also not entirely familiar with the court process but I will give my testimony as truthfully as I can.

 

[Teuntje1234567]

Your Honor, I am also here.

Same as with A__C, I am not entirely familiar with the court, but I will give my testimony as good as I can.

 

[Olisaurus123]

Your Honor, I am also here.

 

[Vernicia]

I am present ,i am familiar with the case but unfamiliar with the court rules

 

[Mercuryellow]

Same as the others, I am present, not entirely familiar with court processes but I'm familiar with the case

 

[Thatsushidude]

You Honor, I Thritystone am Present

 

[nnmc]

Thank you to all of the witnesses for their quick responses. For the witnesses expressing their lack of understanding of the court rules and procedures, I assure you that it is not complicated. As witnesses, you are only expected to answer questions truthfully. It is possible that a lawyer will ask a question, an opposing lawyer will object to the question for being against court rules, and that I sustain the objection and the question is struck from the record. If a question is objected to and I have not responded to the objection yet, you may if you wish go ahead and answer the question, but I may strike your response from the record if I end up sustaining the objection. If I have struck down a question before you answer, then of course do not answer it.

Now we will begin with questioning. @PiOs67 we will start with your direct examination of your 6 witnesses that you called. I would ask that the Plaintiff provides a list of all the questions they want answered by each witness in a single post. If some questions need to be withheld as they depend on answers given to earlier questions, that is also considered reasonable. When the Plaintiff is ready, they may post questions to the witnesses.

 

[Hamhamham420]