Hello, Guest

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.
By:
Advanced search…
What's new

Case: Pending Vontobel v. Ministry of Urban Development (2025) CV 07

Your Honour,


I submitted a Freedom of Information request, which the Ministry granted. However, the links they provided to the requested transcripts are not functional. I respectfully request a continuance until such time as the Ministry can provide either a working link or an HTML copy of the transcripts.
 
Last edited:
Your honour,

The Ministry of Urban Development was able to give me working links before the deadline. As such I would like to submit the following into evidence:

Transcript Omegabiebel - MUD
tickettool.xyz

Ticket Tool - The #1 Discord support bot

Ticket Tool - Ticketing without clutter - The #1 Discord support bot
tickettool.xyz tickettool.xyz

Transcript Wetc LDZ - MUD
tickettool.xyz

Ticket Tool - The #1 Discord support bot

Ticket Tool - Ticketing without clutter - The #1 Discord support bot
tickettool.xyz tickettool.xyz

Listed below are the tickets in pdf form.
 

Attachments

  • TicketOmegabiebel.pdf
    173.4 KB · Views: 8
  • TicketWetcLDZ.pdf
    190 KB · Views: 4
The Court thanks the Plaintiff for their submission of evidence. Given that the deadline has passed, it is assumed that the Defence did not wish to submit any further evidence in the case. We will now move forward to the next part of the case process accordingly:

7. The presiding judge will give time for witnesses to be called. The plaintiff and defendant will both have time to declare witnesses. The presiding justice will then summon those witnesses.
Click to expand...

Each party has 48 hours to indicate if they wish to call any witnesses.
 
We would like to call Omegabiebel, Wetc and SmokedChief.
 
The Defense wishes to call Liam Cofys, Liam Wolfe, Random Intruder, and Jebediah Crumplesnatch as witnesses.

We also question the choice of "SmokedChief" as a witness. It is our understanding this is the user by the name of "DonTrillions," and this individual does not appear to have ever entered into the Azalea Isles. If we do indeed have this individual's username correct, we would object to him being called as a witness, as he hasn't played on the server recently (ever).

1751583783302.png
 
MilkCrack said:
We would like to call Omegabiebel, Wetc and SmokedChief.
Click to expand...
Can you please clarify who SmokedChief "DonTrillions" is? If they are not a person in Azalea Isles, they cannot testify to this case. The Court would be unable to issue a summons to them.
 
Your honour, they are a representative of Volt who can testify to the agreement with Wetc's Company. They are on the Discord and, as such, can be summoned. Or if that's a problem, they can appear without the need for a direct summons.
 
As it stands, "SmokedChief" does not appear to have ever entered the Azalea Isles or participated in its political, economic, or legal framework in a manner recognized by this Court. Merely being present in the Discord is not sufficient grounds to compel or accept testimony in a formal proceeding. If he cannot join and participate in Azalea Isles, then there is currently no way of verifying whether this user is a real individual or just another Discord account of a party to this case.

If the Plaintiff wishes for this individual to testify, they must first ensure that the individual becomes a citizen and or participant of the Azalea Isles, with clear and verifiable activity within its territory. Until such a status is established, this witness cannot be summoned or permitted to give testimony in this case as we are unable to verify their identity.

The Plaintiff and Defendant have an additional 48 hours, from this post, to list any final witnesses they wish to call, and or to identify to the Court who "SmokedChief" is.
 
Your Honor, once the 48 hours has elapsed (occurring shortly), the Defense is prepared to move forward with the case, on the condition that “SmokedChief” is removed from the Plaintiff’s witness list.
 
Your honour, if it was unclear. We don't want to call any additional witnesses either. If Smokedchief is not allowed to testify, we will move on with the other witnesses. We are ready to continue.
 

Writ of Summons - Witnesses

Azalea Isles Civil Court (CV)

Case No. CV-25-07

Plaintiff: Vontobel
Defendant: Ministry of Urban Development
​
The following individuals are required to appear before the court:
  • Omega Biebel (Omegabiebel)​
  • Jack Walker (wetc)​
  • Liam Cofys (Cofys)​
  • Liam Wolfe (Ocg)​
  • Random Intruder (RandomIntruder)​
  • Jebediah Crumplesnatch (Fergie_Foo)​
Please indicate your presence in this thread. Failure to respond within 72 hours may result in contempt of court.
​
Signed,
Hon. Justice Raymond West
​
 
The Plaintiff is asked to present their witnesses and provide them questions accordingly. Please do so in the next 48 hours.
 
(Omegabiebel)
  1. What is your current position or relationship with Vontobel("Volt")?
  2. Could you please explain your relationship with the agreement between Vontobel("Volt") and Wetc's company in relation to plots B107, B108, B128, and B129?
  3. Can you describe how and why the plots were placed under your name in the official registry?
  4. To your knowledge, did the Ministry of Urban Development ever object to the plots being registered in your name prior to the seizure?
  5. Prior to the seizure, did any government official ever inform you that according to their records you were not the lawful owner of the plots?
  6. Did you receive any warnings, notices, or requests for clarification from the Ministry before the seizure occurred?
  7. In the time leading up to the seizure, did the Ministry of Urban Development treat you as the legal, rightful and/or registered owner of the plots?
  8. Did the government provide you with an opportunity to respond to any concerns or allegations before seizing the plots?
  9. Who was responsible for paying the taxes on the plots while they were registered in your name?
  10. After the plots were seized, did the government issue any form of reimbursement or compensation? If so, to whom was it sent?
  11. When the plots were first seized, what reason was given to you by the Ministry of Urban Development?
  12. Shortly after that, did the Ministry change its explanation, citing something different?
  13. Do you believe that these explanations are in line with the agreement between you and wetc?
  14. Do you believe that these explenations are properly reasoned and/or consistent?
  15. In your capacity with Vontobel, are you familiar with the financial agreement involving these plots and the expected revenue from them?
  16. Can you explain, in general terms, what type of income or value these plots were generating or were expected to generate for Vontobel?
  17. Since the seizure of the plots, has Vontobel lost out on daily revenue that would otherwise have been earned through the agreement?
  18. Can you provide an estimate of the total value of lost earnings since the seizure occurred on June 10th?
  19. Has Vontobel incurred additional costs or labour hours in trying to resolve the situation and seek legal redress?
  20. To the best of your knowledge, what are the weekly costs Vontobel has incurred in terms of time and legal efforts related to this dispute?

(Wetc)
  1. Can you please describe your business relationship with Vontobel?
  2. Did your business enter into a REPO agreement with Vontobel involving the plots B107, B108, B128, and B129?
  3. Can you explain what a REPO agreement is and what it involves in this context?
  4. Under that agreement, were the plots transferred to Vontobel (or to Omegabiebel on their behalf)?
  5. Was the expectation that you would later repurchase those plots from Vontobel, thus concluding the agreement?
  6. Did you have the full intention to follow through with that repurchase when the agreement was made?
  7. Do you still intend to repurchase the plots if given the opportunity today?
  8. As part of the agreement, did you state that any seizure of the plots would be the responsibility of Vontobel alone? And you were not liable for the seizure?
  9. Has the Ministry ever indicated to you that your plots were registered as business assets?
  10. Did the Ministry ever indicate to you, that there was a need to deregister the plots or notify the ministry when changing ownership?
  11. To your knowledge as a property developer has the ministry ever communicated a requirement to deregister plots to anyone?
  12. Do you believe that you were in breach of the LDZ contract with the Ministry of Urban Development?
  13. Did the Ministry ever directly notify you that you were in breach of the LDZ contract? If so, when did that happen, and how did they communicate that to you?
  14. Before the land was seized, were you given an opportunity by the Ministry to correct any alleged violation or respond in court?
  15. Had the Ministry followed the legal process and pursued a legal claim against you for breach of contract, would you have defendant yourself in court?
  16. If the court were to find that you partially breached the LDZ contract, would you say that you still substantially fulfilled your contractual obligations?
  17. If the supplemental LDZ contract shared by the defedend were voided entirely, and both parties were returned to their original positions, would that result in the land being returned to the government?
  18. Do you believe you have the financial means to compensate the Ministry for any alleged losses due to a breach of contract rather than surrendering the land?
  19. Under any circumstances, would you prefer to offer financial compensation over surrendering the plots to the Ministry?
  20. Was there a clause that outlined daily interest accumulation or penalties for default, which would directly affect Vontobel’s financial position?
  21. If the plots were not seized do you believe Vontobel would have this money otherwise?
  22. Did you give the Ministry of Urban Development permission to publicly disclose the LDZ contract?
  23. Do you believe that the Ministry violated a non-disclosure clause in the contract by sharing the ldz contract contents with the public?
  24. If so, do you believe that such a breach of contract by the Ministry would have entitled you to seize assets owned by the government without a court process?
 
Objections List

Omegabiebel, Question 2 - more than one of Wetc’s companies have been named over the course of this lawsuit. I would ask that this be clarified to relate to a specific company.

Question 9 - Relevance?

Question 12 - This is very clearly a leading question.

Question 18 - This is a call for speculation. The court would only have this witness’s word as to the alleged value and estimation, which would be inherently biased given the witness is the Plaintiff claiming damages.

Wetc Question 5 - Leading question again.

Question 6 - Another leading question, clearly guiding the witness in how to answer.

Question 11 - Call for speculation. The witness’s status as an alleged property developer does not grant him special insight into Ministry communications.

Question 18 - Objection on the basis of relevance.

Question 19 - Relevance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top