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

Seeing as this time has elapsed, the Court asks the Plaintiff to provide their closing statement. You have 48 hours to do so. @MilkCrack

CLOSING STATEMENT​

Your honour,

My clients' properties were illegally seized by the Ministry of Urban Development’s (“MUD”).

The reason stated was:
“As you are currently in possession of plots that are contractually required to be held by Raze, B107–108 and B128–129 have been seized.”

According to the Guiding principles of Azalea law:
Possession is Nine-Tenths of the Law: In a property dispute, in the absence of clear and compelling testimony or documentation to the contrary, the person in possession of the property is presumed to be the rightful owner.

My client was in possession of the properties, and MUD seized them due to a contract with RAZE, which my client had no involvement with.

The ministry did not present clear and compelling testimony or documentation that my client was not the rightful owner.

The LDZ contract did not state that the plot's ownership could not be transferred on a temporary basis, and even if it did, that doesn't give MUD the authority to seize my clients' properties.

The first reason why MUD did not have the authority to seize my clients' properties is that such a seizure is beyond the scope of powers conferred by law. The Governing Structure Act grants the Ministry authority to:

1. Manage and create government land, buildings, transport, and infrastructure.
2. Manage and plan government development zones (with Cabinet approval).
3. Enforce plot and building regulations.
4. Propose zoning and building regulations.
5. Create destination plans for government buildings and plots.
6. Protect and manage wildlife, ecosystems, and conservation zones.
7. Manage wild islands surrounding the city island.

Nowhere does the Act authorize the Ministry to seize private property in connection with a private contract dispute.

Therefore, the act was ultra vires and a violation of my client's constitutional rights.

The Constitution guarantees the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. The Guiding Principles of Azalea Isles Law further require:
“At all times to avoid violations of a citizen’s right, the government must have proper reasoning to conduct a search or seizure.”

The stated justification that the properties were “contractually required to be held by Raze” is not a lawful or reasonable basis for seizure.

Under the Contract Establishment Act, breaches of contract must be addressed via court action, not unilateral executive enforcement:
“Any individual or entity that experiences a breach of contract… may file a lawsuit against the offending party.”

By seizing property without court remediation, the Ministry violated both statutory and constitutional protections and engaged in prohibited self-help.

Furthermore, although it's not my job to argue on behalf of Raze in the alleged breach of contract. We believe that if the ministry had followed the proper course of action and sued Raze for breach of contract, its claim would not be successful.

Meaning not only is the seizure a violation of due process and a violation of my client's constitutional rights, its premise itself is unsupported.

No Breach of Contract by Raze Holdings occurred because the alleged breach is based on the following clause:
“Raze Holdings agrees to host or facilitate a minimum of four free entry events in Raze Arena every month for a period of six months,
totaling twenty-four (24) events.”

As you can see, there is no start date for the six months provided. As evident by Wetc's testimony, MUD did not make any efforts to initiate the commencement of this period. If MUD hadn't seized the properties, the properties would have been returned to their previous owner several months ago, and Raze could have commenced the period then. There was no date to perform by, so how can there be a breach?

Furthermore, the phrase “agrees to host or facilitate” is not equivalent to “shall host or facilitate.” This kind of language does not impose an immediate, unconditional duty. Performance here was contingent on further arrangements, arrangements which the Ministry never initiated.

Also, the Ministry has presented no proof that Raze failed to host or facilitate qualifying events. Bare assertions do not meet the burden of proof for a breach.

And finally, the Ministry’s anticipatory breach theory, that Raze could not fulfil obligations because Vontobel held the plots, is entirely speculative. Raze could host events on the plots regardless of title. Moreover, the plots were to be repurchased on 10 June, restoring Raze’s original position. Raze’s stated intent, per Wetc’s testimony, was to perform as agreed. Therefore, the requirement for the anticipatory breach that the ministry is alleging is not met.

Now, assuming that even despite all of the countless reasons why there was no breach, there is no reasonable basis to suspect that even if there was a breach that would allow the ministry to seize property from a third-party without a court order.

According to the guiding principles, there are 3 types of contract breaches: fundamental, anticipatory, and material. All of these require remediation by a court, not unilateral executive action.

We believe such a court order would not be granted because the plots are of significantly greater value than any losses the ministry could possibly allege. Take that with the ministry's failures to mitigate damages by simply communicating with Raze. There is no way the plots would have to be liquidated in order to cover the damages. Any shortfall in events could be remedied by hosting additional events or paying monetary damages, not forfeiting property.

Furthermore, the alleged breach was based on a supplemental LDZ contract; the properties were already granted to RAZE prior to the signing of this contract, and therefore, any dissolution of the supplemental LDZ contract would not mean the properties would go to the state. Raze successfully completed the LDZ and built the buildings.

Now, your honour, I would like to go into some of the ministries' more ridiculous claims. That was not in the original seizure explanation. Therefore, they were post hoc and a violation of the guiding principle based on the constitutional right:
“At all times to avoid violations of a citizen’s right, the government must have proper reasoning to conduct a search or seizure.”

So first of all, according to the previous MUD minister OCG, the reason for the seizure was mainly due to the inactivity of RAZE.

This reason was not mentioned to my client until well after the seizure occurred. Why was it not in the original explanation if it was the main reason?

This reason is not proper or reasonable because Raze was not in possession of the land, nor were they the owner at the time of the seizure.

As is evident by the testimony of Omegabiebel and Wetc, the repurchasing agreement put the land under the ownership of Vontobel until they were repurchased. A simple Google search will tell you this is a type of loan, because there is an obligation to repurchase the properties.

Yet the ministry is doing everything it can to say that this is not a 'normal' loan, and they were not wrong for assuming that the property's ownership was not transferred. Well, frankly, they were wrong for assuming as such; they didn't know the facts, and instead of asking questions and sticking with the principle of possession is 9th's of the law principle, they based their entire case on a wrongful assumption.

But instead of apologising and trying to rectify their mistake, they doubled down, again and again. They forced my client to initiate a lawsuit.

Vontobel made every effort to get the plots back and rectify this misunderstanding. The Ministry of Urban Development wouldn't budge. Citizens should expect better; the government needs to be punished.

They invent this kafkian bureaucracy, to which everyone needs to magically know how it works and pre-empt a mistake on their end, when they themselves don't even know how it works.

The Minister Fergie Foo admitted that the system for registering plots as a business asset was not up and running at the time of the seizure. But still somehow claims that Vontobel should have registered the plots, even tho they had already been seized, and taken out of their possession.
And due to this failure, the ownership was not transferred.

So, to get this clear, the Ministry does not recognise my client's ownership at the time of the seizure, because they didn't register the plots AFTER the seizure had already occurred? That is, per definition, a post-hoc reason and should not be accepted by this court.

Furthermore, Raze never registered the plots with the ministry. But somehow, they don't mention that. Their registry says it belongs to Raze, despite this lack of registration. This is a double standard.

Another double standard. The Ministry relies on in-game statistics like Employee count, wages, and activity logs. They declared Raze inactive because they did not register their employees with the in-game plugin. Without there being any legal requirement to register them as such, many employees do not receive an hourly in-game wage. That doesn't mean they don't do any work or contribute to the activity of the company.

No, but when it suits them, the ministry requires registration in-game. But when it doesn't suit them, they dismiss such registration entirely. Raze transferred the properties to another party, in-game. The Ministry should have taken notice of that and acted accordingly. Instead, they pretended like it didn't happen.

It's a pattern of behaviour. The ministry invents policies, such as a need to deregister properties out of thin air, to justify screwing over citizens and companies. The Governing Structure Act clearly states that: "(b) All ministry policies must be published under the respective ministry’s category on the forums." The ministry did not do such a thing, so these policies are not even lawful.

Not everyone has the luck of finding an attorney and the means to support a multi-month lawsuit to combat the firehose of lies being spewed out by the ministry.

The ministry comes up with these ridiculous accusations, such as accusing Wetc of 'criminal fraud' for allegedly taking money out of a company he owns. If I start a company, deposit $500 and take out $500. Is that criminal fraud? No, of course, it's a regular activity done every day.

It's disgusting and wrong. The court needs to give the ministry a reality check. If they want to seize property, they need to follow the lawful process just like everyone else. They have a burden of proof to present clear and compelling testimony or documentation as to why they should be entitled to other people's properties. They did not have it.

In conclusion, the seizure was unlawful, ultra vires, and in violation of constitutional and statutory protections. No breach of contract by Raze Holdings has been proven, and even if a breach occurred, seizure of the plots was not a lawful or proportionate remedy.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

The Plaintiff, Vontobel, respectfully requests that this Honourable Court enter judgment in its favour and grant the following relief:
(1) A declaration that the Ministry of Urban Development’s seizure of plots B107, B108, B128, and B129 was unlawful;
(2) An order directing the Ministry of Urban Development to immediately restore possession of the seized plots to Omegabiebel, as agent of Vontobel;
(3) An injunction prohibiting the Ministry from any further unlawful interference with Vontobel’s collateral or security rights in the subject properties;
(4) An award of compensatory damages for financial losses directly resulting from the Ministry’s unlawful seizure and tortious interference, including:
(a) The previously stated figure of 1,699.50 AD per day in lost earnings from 10 June to the date of judgment was provided as an estimated figure, in accordance with this Court’s request for an early approximation. However, this estimation did not account for the contractual compounding interest applicable under the repurchase agreement’s default clause. Quite frankly we did not anticipate the shear length of this court case.

Upon a full accounting in light of the agreement’s terms specifically, the 10% monthly interest compounded monthly on the $515,000 AD repurchase amount the actual damages are significantly higher. As of 19 August 2025, the amount due totals 650,075.79 AD, reflecting 135,075.79 AD in accrued interest over 70 days of default.

Furthermore, default interest continues to accrue at a rate of 0.3333% per day, resulting in an ongoing daily interest accrual of approximately 2,166.70 AD per day. Assuming judgment is rendered before 10 September 2025, this figure accurately reflects the continuing financial harm suffered due to non-payment.

(b) $5,000 in damages for time and resources expended by the Plaintiff in responding to the Ministry’s actions;
(5) An award of legal fees and litigation costs, in the amount of $1,000 per week from the commencement of this action + any court fees ;
(6) An award of punitive damages, in the amount of $10,000, to deter similar unlawful conduct by the Ministry in the future; and
(7) Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper under the circumstances.

Thank you for presenting your closing statement. The Defence has 48 hours to provide a closing statement. @xXLordLyonXx

Your Honor,

If we weren’t already two months past the original filing of this case, I would motion to strike the Plaintiff’s outright lies that have been already refuted in this court. As it is, I will collect and refute them here:

First claim - it’s the Ministry’s fault for not knowing this was a REPO (repurchase) agreement, which the Plaintiff claims is equivalent to any other type of loan.

The Ministry is not responsible for knowing the minds of everyone who opens a complaint with them. The defense called two expert witnesses on the topic of loans, both witnesses who do banking *in* the Azalea Isles rather than on other servers and are familiar with the norms and banking industry here. Liam Cofys, Chairman of the Bank of Azalea (our central bank), has testified to not only what a normal loan arrangement is, but that he’s never seen a loan of this kind during his work in the bank or at Vance and Hamilton. Random Intruder, a banking executive, testified the same - she’s never seen a REPO agreement here in the Isles, and if she had been presented this same arrangement, she’d have believed it was a non-REPO agreement, and acted the same way the Ministry did.

For the Plaintiff to accuse the Ministry of an unreasonable assumption when their alleged “REPO agreement” is a form of loan two banking executives (one of them being the Chair of the central bank) have testified has not been done in the Isles, is absurd. Indeed, accusations of a faulty assumption are laughable in the face of the Plaintiff’s own admission in witness testimony that “I did not believe that registering the plots as business assets was necessary or appropriate in this case,” assuming that the law saying businesses need to register their plots didn’t somehow apply to his business.
Second claim - Vontobel couldn’t have registered their plots as business plots.

The Plaintiff claiming it was impossible to register a business plot prior to this is laughable, given they never made the attempt to register the plot in the first place. And that’s what actually matters here - Vontobel made no effort to follow one of the oldest laws in the Isles, assuming (directly from the testimony of CEO) it didn’t apply to them. They, according to the Plaintiff’s submitted evidence, had had the loan deal going on for some time, but never bothered to fulfill their legal responsibilities of registration.

Third claim - MUD having Raze as the owner of the plots without official registration is a double standard.

Raze had an existing LDZ Contract for those plots. If these were separate plots not under the LDZ, Raze would’ve been required to formally register them as well, for them to be counted to Raze. However, the contract required the disputed plots be held by Raze - the Ministry can reasonably expect that Raze is the owner of those plots, because they’re the one with an actual contract with the Ministry for the plots.

Fourth claim - Vontobel made every effort to clarify this understanding (the understanding being the REPO arrangement and other details).

I would encourage Your Honor to review the Plaintiff’s own evidence submission to see that’s simply not true, otherwise we’d have already been informed about the REPO arrangement before it popped up in the court case out of the blue.
There are significantly more outright lies in the Plaintiff’s closing statement I would like to address, especially given Jack Walker’s responses were unresponsive and the court has already ruled his testimony discredited due to this unresponsiveness and delays in response. One example would be the Plaintiff unilaterally claiming, using just their opinion, the Ministry would not be successful in a separate contractual violation lawsuit against Raze, and claiming that just their opinion now invalidates our broader premise.

In the interest of justice, I’ll cut to the matter. The Plaintiff alleges Jack Walker was allowed to keep the land under the LDZ Contract. However, MUD has already clearly outlined Jack Walker’s contract was not fulfilled. The Plaintiff arguing on semantic assumptions that do not meet the clear intention of the contract (while attacking the Ministry for reasonable assumptions) is absurd, and in violation of the Plain Meaning Reading principle of law. Jack Walker has recently stated an intent to uphold the LDZ Contract in discredited testimony, sure, but where has this intent been since February? It’s wonderful that he says he wants to finally uphold his part of the contract *now*, but the fact of the matter is he’s failed to follow through on events for months on end, as stated by two former MUD Ministers, well before plot seizure on June 10th.

What does this mean? It means that Raze could not give the plots away, because the contract has never been completed. There is no claim to having complete ownership to sell the property that the Plaintiff can make (on Walker’s behalf) because he hasn’t fulfilled the contract that could give him those capabilities.
So yes, Vontobel could not hold the plots, because Raze could not legally give them away. “Possession is Nine Tenths of the Law” is a wonderful and important guiding principle of the law, but the Plaintiff’s claim that compelling testimony has not been provided is hogwash. The Defense has provided two Ministers who contest the Plaintiff’s claim that Vontobel could own the plots; the LDZ Contract itself and its terms; and testimony that proves Raze did not uphold their end of the bargain, which means they did not have full independent authority to transfer the plots (because they never completed the contract to receive that full ownership).

The plots being required to be owned by Raze means that Jack Walker’s inactivity is at full play here. Being over 30 days inactive is a violation that gives MUD full authority to seize plots, and hiding behind an unregistered and illegal transfer of plot ownership does not somehow end Walker’s duties under the law. The Plaintiff has tried, in blatant violation of the Plain Meaning Reading principle, to retroactively add in several new interpretations to excuse Walker's violations of the actual contract, arguing now that temporary transfers are allowed and Walker wasn’t expected to immediately begin holding events.

Raze owned the plots. Raze was in violation of the Plot Regulation Act's activity regulations. MUD has the power to act on activity regulations. Allowing companies to illegally transfer plots they are contractually required to hold, in order to dodge activity regulations, would be massively problematic for the Ministry. Vontobel may not have been told about the inactivity violation until later, but all that was relevant to them is that they weren’t legally allowed to own the plots, and if they feel they’ve been harmed by this, their harm was incurred by Jack Walker’s actions, not by the government following and enforcing the law against Walker’s violation.

The majority of the evidence is clear, thanks to our experts’ testimony, Walker’s discreditation, and the LDZ Contract itself. Vontobel was not allowed to own the plots, and the fault of the illegal transfer is not on MUD, it is on Jack Walker. MUD was simply enforcing activity requirements on the actual, legally required owner of the plots. We did not need to sue Walker over an inactivity violation, and seizures over inactivity violations are not “unreasonable search and seizure.”

We ask, Your Honor, that you rule to uphold MUD’s actions to enforce the law on the actual owner of the plot, rather than establishing a clear loophole for companies to use in the future as a way to avoid meeting long-known and clearly established legal requirements. The alleged harm is not the Ministry's fault or responsibility. The Plaintiff failed to provide any clarity or transparency around the alleged loan deal, which has only been spoken about, and was not submitted to this court as fair evidence for the defense to review. In fact, the Plaintiff, rather than provide details to MUD, instead assumed that the terms of an agreement made for another server, and in defiance of Azalean norms, would be common knowledge for MUD. When asked for additional information about the loan deal, like when it was signed, the Plaintiff's counsel said "I don't see the relevance in that question," as seen in the first screenshot of the Plaintiff's own evidence. Should any harm have been incurred, it was the result of the Plaintiff's own unwillingness to provide details to MUD, or in Jack Walker's negligence and failure to follow the law in remaining active - neither of which are the fault of this Ministry.

The Ministry of Urban Development, and the Azalea Isles, should not be punished for upholding the law.

The Court thanks both parties for their time on this case. We will now stand in recess until a verdict is delivered.

Court Verdict
Azalea Isles Civil Court (CV)
Case No. CV-25-07
Vontobel v. Ministry of Urban Development

Position of the Plaintiff
1. The Plaintiff, Vontobel, alleges that the Defendant, the Ministry of Urban Development, unlawfully seized four plots (b107, b108, b128, b129) that were in their possession. It is claimed that these plots were seized without sufficient legal basis.
2. The Plaintiff argues that seizure was justified by the Defendant solely on the basis of the LDZ Contract with Raze, a contract to which Vontobel was not a party, and that this action violated the constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure. Their witness, Omega Biebel, advances this point by claiming that the Ministry used the inactivity justification and then only switched to the contractual breach justification later on.
3. The Plaintiff contends that the principle "possession is nine-tenths of the law" in the Guiding Principles should apply, and since Omegab Biebel as the representative of Vontobel was in possession of the properties, they should be presumed rightful owner absent compelling contrary evidence.
4. The Plaintiff suggests that the process for registering plots is inconsistent and establishes unneeded "kafkian bureaucracy" in which too much burden is placed upon the other party.
5. The Plaintiff maintains that the LDZ contract contained vague or unenforceable terms regarding event hosting and transfer restrictions, and in any event, breaches of contract must be resolved through the courts, not unilateral executive action by the Defendant. They further this point by referencing property right protections, and the specific clauses of the Contract Establishment Act.

Position of the Defendant
1. The Defendant, the Ministry of Urban Development, argues that the plots were bound by an LDZ contract requiring Raze to remain the owner until completion of obligations. The Defendant claims that Raze did not fulfill its obligations and fell into prolonged inactivity, it was within its legal rights to seize the plots.
2. The Defendant maintains that the alleged "REPO" Agreement Contract arrangement cited by the Plaintiff was not legally recognized in the Azalea Isles, and two banking experts testified that such agreements are not standard or familiar practice.
3. The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff failed to comply with plot registration laws and cannot now claim ownership protections that require registration. They further this point by claiming that the Plaintiff never provided any clarity or transparency to the Ministry regarding this REPO loan in its pre-court disputes.
4. The Defendant asserts that Raze was in breach of its LDZ obligations and its owner Jack Walker was inactive in violation of the Plot Regulation Act. Since Raze could not legally transfer ownership while in violation of both contract and statute law, the Plaintiff, Vontobel, could not acquire legitimate rights to the plot.
5. The Defendant contends that the seizure was a lawful exercise of its regulatory authority to enforce contractual and activity obligations, and that any harm suffered by the Plaintiff stems from Raze's failures to comply with the regulations, not with alleged government overreach.

Court Opinion
In this case, the legislation that has guided the Court's opinion has been the Plot Regulation Act and the Contract Establishment Act. These are the basic elements expressed throughout over disputes of ownership, contractual breach, and responsibility. At the same time, we have heard from half a dozen witnesses, who have testified to the merits of the REPO Agreement Contract, and who have also offered their expert opinion.

As a general note, I would have also preferred to explore the full details of this REPO Agreement Contract, however it was never disclosed as evidence in this trial and therefore the ruling is based on the information provided through witness testimony and through the case writing of the Plaintiff.

After much consideration, the Court hereby publishes the following key points in its opinion:

1. The Court believes that whether or not a few experts in Azalea Isles consider a REPO Agreement Contract to be unusual or not standard practice is irrelevant. The relevance in this case is whether or not this agreement involved a lawful transfer of plot ownership, considering both the LDZ contract and the Plot Regulation Act. In this case, the authority to recognize plots as business-owned was vested in the Ministry of Urban Development through the Act.
2. The Court finds that the REPO Agreement Contract described by the Plaintiff did not constitute a recognized transfer of ownership under Azalean law. In the Plot Regulation Act §2b, the law is unambiguous on this issue - businesses must register with the Ministry of Urban Development in order to for it to be designated as an asset of the business. While an agreement may have been signed between Vontobel or Raze, the Ministry was not party to such agreement and therefore the business was not legally transferred under the plot. Although the Plaintiff makes a point that the registration process may be particularly burdensome, in appreciation of the "kafkian bureaucracy" remark, the law is the law in this case. It is clear that with the Plot Regulation Act, the Parliament wished to ensure the Ministry had the authority to recognize business-registered plots. This is furthered by §2c which explicitly vests the Ministry with "the right to deny a registration" if they believe a business is using registration to surpass plot limitation or any other "foul play." In this case, the Ministry could have denied Vontobel's registration request over suspicion that it was being used to evade inactivity regulations - although this matter was never fully explored since Vontobel never formally tried to register.
3. The Court acknowledges that the Ministry's unilateral seizure of the plots, rather than pursuing a breach of contract claim in court, raises legitimate concerns under the Contract Establishment Act. However, the Plaintiff in this case, Vontobel, never possessed lawful ownership of the plots through the appropriate legal process. The claim of the Plaintiff rests on the doctrine of possession, but possession cannot override statutory requirements for registration or contractual limitations. Raze remained the registered owner, and the transfer of ownership to Vontobel was never properly formalized through the Ministry.
4. Any alleged financial harm to Vontobel is not recoverable from the Ministry. Those losses, if real, flowed from Raze's alleged inactivity and breach of LDZ obligations, not from unlawful government action. As such, compensatory and punitive damages are unavailable to the Plaintiff. These are best sought through relief in a contractual dispute resolution process between Vontobel and Raze. It is clear based on the testimony of Omega Biebel that he had limited knowledge of this LDZ Contract between Raze and the Ministry of Urban Development prior to the eviction, but the burden to inform him of such should be on Raze, not the Ministry.
5. The Court believes that the Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently establish its legal ownership of this property, and that much of the foundation of its arguments are based on Raze's ownership. It is true that the Ministry's LDZ Contract with Raze is a tacit recognition of Raze's ownership of the plots, not Wetc as an individual, and therefore there is potential basis for Raze to allege that the activity interpretation should not have been applied to these plots. However, this is a case in which Raze would have standing, not Vontobel. One was a lawfully recognized owner through a two-party contract with the Ministry, and the other was one that received the plot illegitimately transferred to them without the proper lawful process.

Decision
The Azalea Isles Civil Court hereby rules in favour of the Defendant.

The Court would like to stress, however, that this ruling does not close the question of whether the Ministry properly enforced its LDZ contract with Raze. If Raze believes that the Ministry of Urban Development's seizure of the plots constitute a breach of the contract or more broadly of their property rights, they retain the right to bring a separate claim before this Court.

This trial is hereby adjourned. The Court thanks both parties for their time.
Signed,
Hon. Justice Raymond West