Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Mitchell Murphy

Member
  • Content Count

    63
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About Mitchell Murphy

  • Rank
    Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

167 profile views
  1. Mitchell Murphy

    BrooksField v. Han Takahashi

    I wasn't going to rush him...
  2. Mitchell Murphy

    BrooksField v. Han Takahashi

    As the conditional 48 hour period has ending without a response, if it is acceptable to the court, BrooksField wishes to motion for a summary judgement.
  3. Prior to formally requesting a summary judgement by this court, the Plaintiff, BrooksField, wishes to highlight the following points. 1.) Keep in mind BrooksField is a service, not a business. BrooksField has issued 203 loans to 133 unique clients. Joey King is only one of fifteen individuals who have failed to pay in full by the due date. Even then, numerous individuals who have paid after the due date have also paid a reasonable late fee. Delinquent accounts are a rarity, be it that many clients are natural timely, that clients fully understand the concept/contact, or that BrooksField has a rigorous late notice regime. 2.)While BrooksField is a service, we still need to maintain income so that numerous expenses can be paid. Joey King's case and future At time moment, excluding the Malik Taylor account, BrooksField has $35,750,000 tied up in 'actionable' accounts, where BrooksField has intended to move swiftly to collect through the courts. However, in timely accounts and standing balance, BrooksField has $52,140,000. The King account is just one of a few actionable account which in total represents some 40.67% of all BrooksField assets. As a result of the limitation of accessible funds, BrooksField has held a loan waitlist since July 27th. A poor ruling in this case, setting precedent for the remaining cases, would serious jeopardize the feasibility of offering future loan service to the island and it's citizens (I cannot stress enough how serious I am about this fact). 3.) The contract as presented in the King contract, is completely reasonable and asserts the claims that are presented in the civic complaint and this case. Numerous legal professionals on this island can attest to that fact, as they have either reviewed or written clauses to that contract. The honorable judge who presided over the superior court civil complaint had taken the position of the minority. In his legal opinion, he made substantial concessions, through assumptions, for the client's competency in understanding the contract without any consideration for the video evidence of Mr. King verbal confirming he completely understood the terms of the contract he signed. Nonetheless, even if there were concerning issues with the contract, absolutely no leniency was given to the Plaintiff BrooksField, which is in stark contrast to what was afford for the nonattending defendant. 4.) The amount that BrooksField is requesting in the initial relief is not at all unreasonable. As state previous, BrooksField lays claim to a substantially larger value as outline in the contract. Nonetheless, it is well acknowledge by BrooksField that even this reasonable sum may not be fully obtainable through a CAF order, due to a lack of funds and assets in the defendants possession. While it would be a shame, it is still necessary that BrooksField recovers as much as possible. Weather it be from the defendant himself or through his estate, there is a large debt owed, one that must be returned as complete as possible. As was intention of SB26, debts can and will be seized through the utilization of this legislation. In SB26, the value ordered is not at all through the consideration for what the defendant has, but rather for what the Plaintiff has claimed. Additionally, SB26 mechanism for Supreme court review is so that egregious misuses of CAF orders to be avoided. What has already been stated is that the claim BrooksField lays is substantial, but the relief requested is clearly more than reasonable. From the points stated, BrooksField hopes that this court: validate the legality and enforcement of the Joey King Contract, agree with the requested relief of $9,337,157, and to issue a CAF warrant to this effect. With all that said, I formally motion this court to issue a summary ruling, using all documentation and responses to "BrooksField v. Joey King" and "Petition for Writ of Certiorari in re: BrooksField v. Joey King."
  4. Phrase in question removed. It was a revision error, was not intended to be published.
  5. What follows is in response to this court's question, "On matters of stare decises, how will this case affect cases such as BrooksField v. Taylor, in which such an agreement was executed in a similar fashion, with the same statute (SB. 26) being relied upon?" In regards to the BrooksField v. Taylor case, specifically, the Taylor Contract itself and the process used at the time admittedly had issues. The primary issue is the base contract that was used and the included wording or lack thereof. So in that case, I was more than willing to accept the monetary decision of the Honorable Papa Pug. Nonetheless, by the time of the disbursement of the King Contract, the Taylor Contract had already defaulted. Through BrooksField internal communications, potential outcomes and contingencies were already being considered upon the ramifications and possible mitigations of future defaults. What was determined, in the Taylor Contract and future defaulted contracts, is that there maybe an uncertain length of time that would lapse after default where BrooksField's entitled funds would be held up until final legal proceedings. In these cases, BrooksField funds would be out of our hands and be outside of operations, incurring a loss of earnings. The mitigation that was chosen was that compounding interest was to be inherent in every proceeding contract. In the King Contract and future contracts, BrooksField and Clients agree upon a cyclical period in which interest is applied to the outstanding balance. While a final due date is agreed, it is not a definitive end of term if there is an outstanding balance, a default. In the case that a default was to occur, while BrooksField attempted to receive/recover the payment, interest would still be occurring, with an optional late fee that increased the interest rate by 10% per late period that could be applied at BrooksField discretion. The late fee was intended to be reserved for instances in which the client had outright abandoned the loan or was maliciously avoiding BrooksField. When writing this new contract, which is the basis of the King Contract, BrooksField contacted and worked with numerous legal professionals on the island to achieve the previously mentioned intentions. The contract was either written or reviewed by: Mitchell Murphy, Matt Lee, Lee Bread, Tao Brightwater, and Brady Warhorse. At the conclusion of this process, all of the previously mentioned persons agreed and approved that the contract achieved the previously mentioned goal. As such, there is a clear evolution between the Taylor Contract and the King Contract. The King Contract was written with compounding interest as it's basis in order to protect BrooksField from a loss of earnings while funds were held by a defaulted client. From at least March 10th, 2021 to present day, the basis of the King Contract has been used in every loan BrooksField contract. To give perspective of what that represents is 15 lapsed contracts, excluding the King and Taylor cases, which constitute a total principle being held with a value of $32,750,000. At our lowest rate of 10% per week, we have a loss of earnings valued at $3,275,000 a week. Pertaining to the utility of S.B. 26, it is a mechanism that was created with this specific situation in mind. With migrancy that proliferates our island, it is understood that some would abandon their liabilities and leave outstanding debts. Without S.B. 26, creditors and grantors would be unduly put at risk, including the government itself, where simply the abandonment of agreed responsibilities. BrooksField relies upon S.B. 26 as truly a measure of last resort. As stated in the original civil complaint, BrooksField attempted to make contact with Mr. King in person, through his employer, and through the government forums. In these attempts, messages and notices, were received and read by Mr. King but were never replied. In this case, and future, BrooksField is using S.B. 26 as a measure of last resort, and wished to avoid this by all means, however the actions of the client forced us to this precipice. Furthermore, there is an implied meaning to the wording that is used in the question posed to the State that cannot go unnoticed and unremarked by the Plaintiff. There seems to be a predilection by this court that the defendant is deceased. It cannot be ignored or disregarded by this court that the defendant has not been declared to be deceased nor can it be argued that the defendant is deceased. To be deceased, the client must not have a choice in the matter, force majeure. There is absolutely no evidence that there is force majeure in this case, all actions by the defendant have been his choice. It was a choice by the defendant to accept the terms of the loan agreement. It was a choice by the defendant to abandon the island. It was a choice by the defendant to leave his employment unannounced. It was a choice by the defendant to default on his loans. It was a choice for the defendant to read the late notice delivered to him by BrooksField. It was a choice by the defendant to leave the late notice unanswered. And, It was a choice by the defendant to not contest this claim. The facts and evidence provided in this case demonstrate clear choices by the defendant. A choice to abandon his contractual responsibilities and a choice to leave himself at fault. Keep in mind, there is absolutely nothing restraining the defendant from visiting the island at any time he chooses. And, by that fact, the defendant is undeniably alive. Your honor, what your decision would establish is a few key factors which have yet to be determined on this island, 1.) In the contract: a.) That an outstanding debt past the due date can still accrue interest as agreed upon in the contract. b.) That a penalty can be levied per late period on outstanding debts as agreed upon in the contract. 2.) That the contract is enforceable and debts can be recovered when the client abandons the debt. 3.) Is death considered force majeure in this case? 3.1.) If yes, What is the legal definition of death on this island? 3.2.) If yes, what constitutes legal death? 3.3.) If yes, can death be a choice? i.) If yes, how can it therefore absolve the client from his contractual obligations?
  6. The Petitioner files a writ of certiorari in regards to the Superior Court case of BrooksField v. Joey King. The Petitioner has a belief that the given relief is substantially below the just deserts regarding the facts of the case, which were either ignored or disregarded by the presiding judge. Firstly, the relief failed to account for the revolving nature of the loan issued to the defendant. As seen in the contract, interest is applied to the outstanding balance of the client's account at the end of each period which is considered as "1 week." Even once the due date has passed, if there is still an outstanding balance the original interested rate is still to be applied per period. Until the filing of the original case, the defendant had entered into 19 periods. In the relief, the presiding judge failed to account for any of the 16 periods that were entered into after the due date. The presiding judge only gave BrooksField claim to the "expected payment" of $4,214,784. However, it is clear that this process was not at all expected. Without the additional late fee, the amount contractually owed to BrooksField would be $25,838,286.10. Secondly, the relief failed to account for the written late fee. The presiding judge, issue a flat 10% late fee on the balance that was originally due. The contract states under clause 5 "late payments", "Lender will have the option to charge a late fee of an additional 10% per late period. " As stated, there is an "additional 10%" interest rate added to every "late period." To determine if a period is late, the clause also states that " Payment shall be considered late if received by Lender 1 day after its due date." The presiding judge considered this to be unclear, however, the video accompany the civil complaint includes an explanation to the defendant, in which the client verbal confirms he understand the late fee and it's accompanying repercussions. If the previous two issues were not enough, it should be emphasized that the defendant has held onto BrooksField funds for 122 days past the due date. The entire operation of BrooksField is loans. Having this money tied up for 122 days has limited the operations of our loans program. Even at our lowest interest rate of 10% per period, this would have equated to minimal potential earnings of $13,979,751.90, excluding the principal of $3,000,000, assuming we would have had entire utilization, which is some 75% of the time. While BrooksField wishes to resolve this issue as quickly as possible, for the previous reason, BrooksField is deserving of some larger relief than what was given by the previous hearing. BrooksField strongly believes some aspects of the contract were ignored and that some of the issues brought upon Brookfield were ignored. Once again, BrooksField requests the originally requested relief of $9,337,157. Mitchell Murphy Alaska Bar No. 6076432 Owner of BrooksField Savings & Loans
  7. Mitchell Murphy

    BrooksField v. Malik Taylor

    Much like any one of BrooksField's other accounts, they are checked and update whenever a BrooksField Representative signs in for work at the Bank. This entails that, firstly, the BrooksField Representative looks to see if the client is on the island in order to make contact, if necessary. Secondly, the BrooksField Representative looks to see if the account has entered into a new period and, if so, the outstanding balance of the clients account is updated accordingly. While this may seem inconsequential, understand that this is done multiple times a day, by multiple bankers individually. With five active bankers, doing this for 170 days, and the time and effort does amount to an "unexpected operational cost."
  8. Mitchell Murphy

    BrooksField v. Joey King

    @Papa Pug As Mr. King has not contested the complaint charged against him, BrooksField wishes to motion for a summary judgement by this honorable court.
  9. Mitchell Murphy

    BrooksField v. Malik Taylor

    @Papa Pug As Mr. Taylor has not contested the complaint charged against him, BrooksField wishes to motion for a summary judgement by this honorable court to obtain a timely resolution to this drawn out predicament.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By viewing ANZUSGaming's website you agree to our Terms of Use