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

[MilkCrack]

Vontobel, Plaintiff
v.
Ministry of Urban Development, Defendant

Civil Complaint:​

Plaintiff Vontobel brings this action against the Ministry of Urban Development (MUD) for the unlawful and unauthorized seizure of plots registered under Omegabiebel's name.

The plaintiff has a clear right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. MUD's actions constitute an infringement on this right.

Parties:​

• Plaintiff: Vontobel ("Volt"), a financial institution with an active security interest in the disputed land plots.
• Defendant: Ministry of Urban Development.

Factual Allegations:​

1. Omegabiebel had registered under their name plots B107, B108, B128 and B129. As part of a loan agreement including Vontobel.
2. On or about the 24th of May, The Ministry of Urban Development seized plots B107, B108, B128 and B129.
3. The plots were seized citing the following reason: "Because you currently are in possession of plots which are contractually required to be held by Raze"
4. Omegabiebel opened, a ticket with the Ministry of Urban Development asking for clarification, and his plots back.
5. The Minister of Urban Development at the time (Fergie_Foo) cited the reason why the plots were seized as "Raze was the company, owned by Wetc, who developed the land and illegally sold it to you. The plots were not theirs to sell, and so they have been reclaimed by the government."
6. On or about the 6th of June, The new MUD minister OCG stated "And by verifying you are not part of Raze “After completion of the development, the Ministry of Urban Development agrees to allow Raze Development to retain ownership of the ceded land outlined previously.” when wetc hit the 30 day inactivity limit, the plot was seized. Volt was not given permission to hold the land via the contract, only raze"
7. On or about the 7th of June, the same minister stated "If the land was handed to Wetc, he would have had to open a ticket to register it. But instead the contract which is in MUD records and signed by a minister, states the business owns the land and who operates the business."
8. On or about the 10th of June the Prime Minister stated: "At no time did any third party have ownership of the plots. Them being provided as collateral does not suddenly change their actual owner, nor was there any update to their registration as a business plot. We have no record of the plots being registered under Vontobel."
9. The Ministry of Urban Development has been repeatedly asked to return the plots and go through the proper channels but has refused to do so. Stating "By all means, I look forward to your lawsuit."
10. The seizure of the plots was done unilaterally by the Ministry of Urban Development, without a court warrant.

Legal Claims:
(1) Unlawful seizure. The defendant unlawfully seized property in which Plaintiff held a valid security interest, with no legal cause. As per The Contract Establishment Act, the legal remedy for a breach of contract is to file a lawsuit against the offending party. The Ministry of Urban Development did not file a lawsuit and chose to just seize the plots using the power of the state instead. Violating not only statutory law but also constitutional law prohibiting such unlawful seizures.
(2) Government Overreach. The seizure occurred without any hearing, warning, or adjudicative process, in breach of principles of procedural fairness. And constitutes a government overreach of powers.
(3) Tortious Interference. By seizing the collateral without justification, and taking up so much of the plaintiff's time the Ministry interfered with Vontobel’s financial agreement and damaged the enforceability of its secured interest. Leading to financial losses.

Prayer for Relief:​

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:
(1) Order the Ministry of Urban Development to immediately restore possession of the plots to Omegabiebel;
(2) Enjoin the Ministry from further unlawful interference with Vontobel’s collateral or security rights;
(3) Award compensatory damages for any loss suffered due to the Ministry’s actions; Amounting to $1699.50 per day since the 10th of June for lossed earnings. And $5,000 total for time spend dealing with the ministers actions.
(4) Award legal fees and costs to the Plaintiff; Amounting to $1,000 per week from the start of this courtcase.
(5) Award punitive damages. Amounting to $10,000.
(6) Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper under the circumstances.
(7) Place an Emergency injunction to return the plots to the plaintiff immediatly so they can continue with their bussines activities.

Verification:​

I, Milkcrack, hereby affirm that the allegations in the complaint AND all subsequent statements made in court are true and correct to the best of the plaintiff's knowledge, information, and belief and that any falsehoods may bring the penalty of perjury.


Attached, are pictures of the ticket transcript presented as evidence. Due to forum, size limits and discord limitations, they are formatted in reverse. Unfortunatly we do not have permission in the discord to get a transcript of the ticket from the bot.

 

[Westray]

Before the Court issues a summons, please amend your complaint to include a number of how much compensation the Plaintiff would require in their prayer in relief. This may include calculated estimates, based on past precedent, or on lawful standards.

 

[MilkCrack]

You honour, the complaint has been amended.

 

[Westray]

Writ of Summons

Azalea Isles Civil Court (CR)

Case No. CV-25-067
​

Plaintiff: Vontobel ("Volt")
Defendant: Ministry of Urban Development

​

The Defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of Vontobel v. Ministry of Urban Development. Failure to respond within 48 hours may result in a default judgement. Both parties are ask to familiarize themselves with the relevant court documents, including proper formats, as well as the laws referenced in the complaint. Ensure that you comply with any court orders.

If you wish to hold this trial at the Azalea Courthouse in-person, please note that in your response. The Court will try to work with both parties to hold live hearings at convenient times.

​

Signed,
Hon. Chief Justice Raymond West

 

[Westray]

On the matter of the emergency injunction, as specified in the Plaintiff's Prayer for Relief §7, the Court will rule on this matter once the Defendant has had the opportunity to respond to this case. It is advised that the Defendant provides their arguments on the injunction in their answer to the complaint.

 

[xXLordLyonXx]

Your Honor, given that this weekend is Father's Day weekend, I am requesting an additional 48 hours extension. I recognize this is a significant extension, but given that many celebrate today and some celebrate tomorrow, coordination is nearly impossible until the week begins.

 

[Westray]

The extension of 48 hours is granted given the holiday. Once this extension has passed, the Court shall rule on the emergency injunction.

In the meantime until the emergency injunction is ruled on, the Court will be asking that the Ministry of Urban Development refrains from selling, removing, giving away, or otherwise modifying the status of b107, b108, b128 and b129.

 

[xXLordLyonXx]

Motion To Dismiss

Your Honor, the Plaintiff in this case is named as Vontobel. However, Vontobel has no standing to sue. This is simply a matter of fact. The Plaintiff claims the plots are Vontobel's property, and that the government has illegally seized this property of Vontobel, yet they were never registered as such with MUD. In order for the plots to legally be owned by Vontobel, the business, the plots would have had to have been registered with MUD as business plots. The plots have never been registered to their name with MUD, and not only was this registration never done, it was never even attempted, nor has the Plaintiff provided any evidence to indicate otherwise, so again - Vontobel cannot have legal standing here.

 

[Westray]

The Plaintiff has 48 hours to provide a response to the motion to dismiss before the Court rules on it.

 

[MilkCrack]

Your Honour,

The Defendant unlawfully seized property registered under the name of an agent acting on behalf of my client. As a result of this improper seizure, my client has suffered financial damages, this is sufficient grounds to establish standing.

Furthermore, no law grants the Ministry of Urban Development final authority to determine plot ownership and citizens should be thankful for that. The Ministry has repeatedly failed to maintain a consistent position on who owns the plots in question.

At various times, the Ministry has claimed the plots belonged to Wetc, then to Raze Development, then to Omegabiebel or Vontobel, and back again cycling through explanations with little regard for clarity or consistency.

Putting an end to this confusing and arbitrary bureaucratic behaviour is precisely what this case is about.

In fact, the Defendant said it best in their motion to dismiss: "This is simply a matter of fact."

And matters of fact should be litigated during trial, not a motion to dismiss.

If the Defendant wishes to establish ownership or lack thereof, they should present evidence and arguments before the Court during trial. That is why I respectfully ask that this case be allowed to proceed and that the motion to dismiss be denied.

 

[xXLordLyonXx]

Motion to Strike

Your Honor, businesses are clearly required to register their plots with the Ministry of Urban Development under Section 2 of the Plot Regulation Act. The Plaintiff claims that "no law grants the Ministry of Urban Development final authority to determine plot ownership." The Plot Regulation Act specifically states that "Businesses shall release the following information to the ministry upon decision to designate a plot an asset to a business," and then lists the required information. While I can go on about how process was never completed and the Plaintiff hasn't proved that it was, which means it cannot be a plot owned by a business, the point here is that the Plaintiff's claim is completely and utterly false. There is a law on the books that directly disproves the Plaintiff's statement, and thus we would ask it be excluded from his response.


Hearsay Objection

The Plaintiff claims that the Ministry of Urban Development has said, at some unknown time, that the plots belong to Omegabiebel or Vontobel. The Plaintiff has not provided/pointed to evidence of this, and it is in fact in direct contradiction of the evidence he provided the court in his filings, in which MUD has been clear these plots are owned by Wetc/Raze Holdings (which are legally not separate entities under Azalean law). Even if one wished to argue for a distinction between those two, MUD did not ever acknowledge Vontobel's ownership in the provided evidence, nor could the Ministry given Vontobel never even attempted to register the plots, and so any Wetc/Raze arguments are irrelevant. This claim is hearsay for the purposes of the arguments on the motion and should not be considered.

 

[MilkCrack]

Your Honour,

I have chosen to respond to these objections because, in the past, similar post-response objections have resulted in rulings where I was denied the opportunity to respond. While I respectfully disagree with the practice of allowing such successive objections after replies have been submitted, I will respond here to best represent my client and in the interest of expediting the proceedings.

That said, I would appreciate the Court’s guidance on proper courtroom etiquette regarding the sequence of objections and responses to ensure all parties are operating on equal procedural footing.

Motion to Strike
Your Honour, the Court should not entertain a motion to strike merely on the basis that the defendant disagrees with a statement. The defendant had ample time to prepare a proper and thorough Motion to Dismiss, and yet opted to submit only a short paragraph in support. If they now regret that decision, that is not a valid basis to seek the striking of opposing arguments.

A motion to strike is not a tool for introducing or fleshing out arguments.

Furthermore, the defendant’s interpretation of Section 2 of the Plot Regulation Act is plainly incorrect. In order for my statement to be false, the act would need to and I quote, “final authority to determine plot ownership.”. This is clearly not the case your honour Section 2 merely establishes the procedure by which a business may register a plot as an asset with the Ministry. It does not confer unilateral authority to adjudicate or determine legal ownership.

Objection: Hearsay
Your Honour, the definition of hearsay under the Court’s procedures is as follows:
“A statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.”

Firstly, I am not testifying at a trial or hearing; this is a pre-trial filing.

Secondly, the referenced statements were not submitted as evidence to prove the truth of the matter, but rather as assertions supported by separate corroborating evidence.

Nevertheless, even if the Court were to consider the hearsay objection applicable, the statements referenced are independently verifiable and have been repeatedly made by the Ministry of Urban Development. To illustrate:

• “Because you (Omegabiebel or Vontobel, unclear) currently are in possession of plots.”
• “Raze was the company, owned by Wetc, who developed the land and illegally sold it to you (Omegabiebel or Vontobel, unclear).”
• Regarding the basis for the seizure: “Volt(Vontobel) was not given permission to hold the land via the contract, only Raze.” Implying that Vontobel held the land.

In light of the above, I respectfully request that the Court dismiss these objections and motions as procedurally and substantively unfounded. It is in the interest of justice and efficiency that we proceed to a response on the complaint and advance toward a substantive ruling.

It appears like the Ministry of Urban Development is intentionally stalling this case, your honour. While my client suffers by the day.

 

[Westray]

While I thank you both for your arguments, I will remind both parties to avoid speaking out of turn. The Court is prepared to rule on the following matters:

Motions and Objections
The motion to dismiss is hereby denied. There are two key reasons for this decision. First, the Plaintiff has alleged a plausible injury-of-fact (the loss of a secured interest). Enough has been provided to show that the Plaintiff has an economic stake in this case and that the injury alleged may have a direct impact. Second of all, the Defence's motion hinges on factual disagreement over who the plots were legally registered to and speaks to the authority of the Ministry of Urban Development (MUD). These are fair arguments, however, whether the Plaintiff's interest was properly registered or whether MUD had legal authority to reclaim the plots are questions of fact that need to be resolved with full evidence and testimony.

The motion to strike has been denied. The Plaintiff's statement on ministry authority over plot ownership is a legal argument, not a factual misstatement. There should be plenty of time throughout this case for both the Plaintiff and Defence to argue why their interpretation of the Plot Regulation Act is more legally sound than the other.

The objection to hearsay is hereby sustained. The Plaintiff has made a wide range of statements regarding what was or was not said without linking it to sufficient admissible evidence. While there is typically more leniency in this pre-trial phase, the Plaintiff explicitly lists these claims under "Factual Allegations." If the Plaintiff is claiming that these are facts, then they need to provide evidence or witness testimony of this in the case. Accordingly, any statements over what MUD said about the plot ownership that are not backed up by the evidence provided are hereby stricken from the record, including the claim that MUD has recognized the Plaintiff's ownership. This ruling does not preclude the Plaintiff from reintroducing properly authenticated evidence or witness testimony during the trial, subject to the normal rules of evidence.

Emergency Injunction
Finally, on the matter of the emergency injunction as outlined in §7 of the Prayer for Relief. At this time, the Court is prepared to offer an alternative order instead. Given that the Plaintiff has only alleged ownership of the plot, it would be unjust for the Court to unilaterally grant them usage of this plot during this case. At the same time, it is also unjust for the Court to allow MUD to continue to use the property if it is later proven that it does not belong to them. The Plaintiff has alleged that the plots need to be returned immediately for "business activities" but has not prescribed what business activities would require this, and the Defence has largely failed to engage with the injunction. Therefore, the Court will be issuing a status quo preservation order on the property.

While MUD will be allowed to keep the property under its ownership, it shall refrain from removing, selling, giving away, or otherwise modifying the status of b107, b108, b128 and b129. This means that MUD is not allowed to put buildings on this plot or use it in any way that goes beyond the status quo until this case has concluded.

Next Steps
Given the denial of the motion to dismiss, the Defence is hereby called upon to provide their response to the complaint so that we can move on to the trial. The Defendant has 48 hours to respond, and is asked to please indicate whether they would like to continue this case on the forums or if they would like to have trial hearings in the Azalea Courthouse.