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

[Westray]

The Court is prepared to rule on the following objections.

Objections on Questions to Omega Biebel (Omegabiebel)

• Question 2 - Objection is sustained in part. The Plaintiff may rephrase this question as to specify which company or companies, by name. @MilkCrack
• Question 9 - Objection is overruled for now. An important element of this case is plot ownership, and whether or not said witness has paid tax on a plot could construe some degree of ownership over it. Thus, it is relevant.
• Question 12 - Objection is sustained. The witness will disregard such question.
• Question 18 - Objection is overruled. Witnesses and parties in civil cases may testify as to estimates of damage. The court will weigh the bias of such testimony; cross-examination and expert rebuttal are the proper remedy.

Objections on Questions to Jack Walker (wetc)

• Question 5 - Objection is sustained. The phrasing suggests the answer.
• Question 6 - Objection is overruled. This is a present-tense question about the witness' current intent, which they are allowed to state clearly.
• Question 11 - Objection is overruled. The question is framed as "to your knowledge," which limits it to the witness’s understanding, not absolute fact.
• Question 18 - Objection is overruled. This is relevant to claims of breach of contract and potential retaliatory or improper government conduct. Whether it entitles the witness to remedies is a legal issue, but the question is material.
• Question 18 - Objection is overruled. The response will help the court evaluate what alternatives were available or could still be negotiated.

As a reminder, the witnesses are asked to answer these questions in a timely manner.

@wetc You are directed to answer questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 from the Plaintiff's counsel.

@Omegabiebel You are directed to answer questions 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 from the Plaintiff's counsel. You may be asked to answer question 2 if it is rephrased properly.

 

[xXLordLyonXx]

Your Honor, it has been over three days since the witnesses were called, and over 50 hours since they were directed to answer questions. I am motioning for sanctions against both witnesses and requesting we move on.

 

[Westray]

@wetc and @Omegabiebel You have 48 hours from this post to respond to the questions. If you do not meet this timeline, you will both be held in contempt.

 

[wetc]

1.
Q: Can you please describe your business relationship with Vontobel?

A: Vontobel is my bank of choice.

2.
Q: Did your business enter into a REPO agreement with Vontobel involving the plots B107, B108, B128, and B129?

A: Yes.

3.
Q: Can you explain what a REPO agreement is and what it involves in this context?

A: REPO stands for repurchase. The terms were that I got 500,000 dollars from Vontobel. In return, I had to pay it back with interest, and they would have ownership of the plots in the meantime.

4.
Q: Under that agreement, were the plots transferred to Vontobel (or to Omegabiebel on their behalf)?

A: Yeah, the plots were transferred to Vontobel. Omegabiebel would manage the plots, ensure the plots were compliant with regulations and wouldn't get seized.

5.
Q: Did you have the full intention to follow through with that repurchase when the agreement was made?

A: Yes, I did.

6.
Q: Do you still intend to repurchase the plots if given the opportunity today?

A: Yes, I do. I want my plots back. I spent a lot of money and time developing them.

7.
Q: 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?

A: Yeah, I informed them that they needed to keep up with regulations, ensure that they pay taxes on the plots, and keep up with the playtime requirement. In the event of the seizure, they would end up with no plots and I wouldn't pay them if they got seized. So this lawsuit is their only recourse.

8.
Q: Has the Ministry ever indicated to you that your plots were registered as business assets?

A: I think the Ministry registry is very poorly administered. I never formally applied and didn't fill out a form. It's very clear that the plots were owned by Raze Development, and the Ministry knows that, but it has never been communicated to me that there is a registry.

9.
Q: Did the Ministry ever indicate to you, that there was a need to deregister the plots or notify the Ministry when changing ownership?

A: No, I was never informed of that.

10.
Q: To your knowledge as a property developer, has the Ministry ever communicated a requirement to deregister plots to anyone?

A: I never heard of anyone having to deregister a plot when you transfer ownership. I can't find anywhere in law or policy that even is an actual requirement or practice people do.

11.
Q: Do you believe that you were in breach of the LDZ contract with the Ministry of Urban Development?

A: No. I am not even sure what exactly the alleged breach is.

12.
Q: 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?

A: Nope.

13.
Q: Before the land was seized, were you given an opportunity by the Ministry to correct any alleged violation or respond in court?

A: No.

14.
Q: Had the Ministry followed the legal process and pursued a legal claim against you for breach of contract, would you have defended yourself in court?

A: Yeah, I would hire a lawyer and defend this claim.

15.
Q: If the court were to find that you partially breached the LDZ contract, would you say that you still substantially fulfilled your contractual obligations?

A: Yeah, definitely.

16.
Q: If the supplemental LDZ contract shared by the defendant were voided entirely, and both parties were returned to their original positions, would that result in the land being returned to the government?

A: No, before I signed the supplemental LDZ contract shared by the defendant, the LDZ was already granted. There is no basis to assume they would be entitled to my plots.

17.
Q: 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?

A: Any alleged damages would be minor and could be covered without having to sell the plots.

18.
Q: Under any circumstances, would you prefer to offer financial compensation over surrendering the plots to the Ministry?

A: I have spent a lot of time and money in the development of the plots and they are important to my business. I would at all costs ensure that the plots remain in my possession.

19.
Q: Was there a clause that outlined daily interest accumulation or penalties for default, which would directly affect Vontobel’s financial position?

A: Yeah, in the event that there was a delay in the repurchase, I would have to pay 0.3333% per day of interest on the outstanding repurchase amount.

20.
Q: If the plots were not seized, do you believe Vontobel would have this money otherwise?

A: Vontobel would have the repurchase money from me and could use that money to get similar returns, or at the very least prevent losses. If there had been a slight delay, I could have covered the additional interest.

21.
Q: Did you give the Ministry of Urban Development permission to publicly disclose the LDZ contract?

A: No, I did not.

22.
Q: Do you believe that the Ministry violated a non-disclosure clause in the contract by sharing the LDZ contract contents with the public?

A: Potentially, yeah.

23.
Q: 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?

A: No, of course not. I would be arrested for theft. If people just take what they want without going through the proper procedures, it will become the Wild West. And just because the government has the power to evict people from plots because of plot regulations, that does not entitle them to weaponise those powers in their capacity as a party to a contract.