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.