Lawsuit: Dismissed Maxib02 V. DocTheory [2025] DCR 46

[12700k]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Maxib02
Plaintiff

v.

DocTheory
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On the night of June 29th into the morning of June 30th, I participated in a poker game on PokerNow.club, where I won a total of $11,124. Despite winning fair and square, the Defendant, DocTheory, has refused to pay the owed amount. When ATP Deputy Managing Partner, Talion77, reached out, the Defendant claimed that due to the commandeering of Voyager, he could not pay out the funds. However, he has ignored direct messages from myself and from others. I am seeking full compensation and additional damages to discourage similar misconduct in the future.

I. PARTIES
1. Plaintiff: Maxib02
2. Defendant: DocTheory

II. FACTS
1. Plaintiff participated in a poker game with the defendant on Pokernow.club on June 29–30 (See: P-002, P-004)
2. Plaintiff won a total of $11,124 (See: P-003, P-004)
3. Plaintiff claims the defendant failed to pay the winnings (See: P-001)
4. Defendant claimed the Redmont Department of Commerce’s action of commandeering Voyager prevented payout (See: P-007)
5. Defendant was already notified that Voyager was commandeered by the Redmont Department of Commerce in an announcement sent by Avaneesh2008 in #government-announcements in the DemocracyCraft Discord server, 2 days before the poker game, on June 27th, yet decided to participate in the poker game anyway (See: P-005)
6. Defendant ignored follow-up messages from Maxib02 (See: P-006)
7. The Federal Court has acknowledged that casino betting practices are enforceable debts, in MegaMinerM v. Vortex [2024] FCR 90 stating “Casinos are offering a contract when they offer a chance to win money in exchange for money.” Plaintiff, Maxib02 and defendant, DocTheory entered into a contract when they participated in a poker game that involved "a chance to win money in exchange for money."

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant committed gambling fraud, §6 of the Commericial Standards Act, by refusing to pay out winnings from a poker game, misrepresenting the outcome and denying the Plaintiff their rightful earnings.
2. The Defendant may have engaged in embezzlement, §8 of the Commercial Standards Act, by withholding assets entrusted to them for payout and using those funds for personal gain.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $11,124 in compensatory damages owed from poker winnings
2. $3,000 in punitive damages to discourage these actions in the future
3. $4237.20 in legal fees, per the Legal Damages Act

V. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: P-004

Spoiler: P-005

Spoiler: P-006

Spoiler: P-007

VI. WITNESS LIST

1. Raitheguy
2. Jaja_thinks
3. Avaneesh2008

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 3rd day of July 2025

 

[12700k]

Your honor, I present proof of retainer with Maxib02.

 

[JunkCereal]

Writ of Summons

@DocsTheory is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Maxib02 v. DocTheory [2025] DCR 46.

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

 

[DocsTheory]

Present your honor.

 

[JunkCereal]

Present your honor.

You have 72 hours from the time of this post to file an Answer to Complaint.

 

[ToadKing]

Answer to Complaint

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Maxib02
Plaintiff

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

v.

DocTheory
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. Defendant AFFIRMS that the Plaintiff participated in a poker game with the Defendant on Pokernow.club on June 29-30.

2. Defendant AFFIRMS that the Plaintiff won a total of $11,124.

3. Defendant AFFIRMS that the "Plaintiff claims the Defendant failed to pay the winnings"; HOWEVER, the Plaintiff's counsel was contacted with an offer to pay back the full amount before the Defendant was summoned in this case. (D-002)

4. Defendant AFFIRMS that the Redmont Department of Commerce's action of commandeering Voyager prevented payout.

5. Defendant AFFIRMS that the Defendant was notified that the Redmont Department of Commerce commandeered Voyager in an announcement sent by Avaneesh2008 in #government-announcements in the DemocracyCraft Discord server on June 27th, and that the Defendant participated in the poker game on June 29-30.

6. Defendant DENIES that they ignored follow-up messages from Maxib02. NOTE: The Plaintiff blocked the Defendant (P-006), preventing communication. The Defendant made attempts to contact the Plaintiff but was unable to do so due to being blocked.

7. Defendant DENIES the Plaintiff's characterisation and application of MegaMinerM v. Vortex [2024] FCR 90, but AFFIRMS that a contract existed between the parties when they participated in the poker game.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Defendant has paid the full amount of $11,124 owed to the Plaintiff, thereby curing any breach and rendering the claim for compensatory damages moot. (D-001)

2. The Defendant's ability to pay was prevented by circumstances beyond their control - specifically, the commandeering of Voyager Bank by the Department of Commerce as announced on June 27, 2025 (P-005). Under Section 15 of the Contracts Act, force majeure events allow for the temporary suspension of contractual duties. The bank's suspension of withdrawals made timely payment impossible.

3. The Defendant acted in good faith throughout:
a. Defendant successfully paid other poker game participants their winnings
b. Plaintiff's counsel was contacted, offering to pay the full amount before being summoned (D-002)
c. Defendant attempted to communicate with the Plaintiff but was blocked and unable to do so
d. Defendant never denied the debt or attempted to avoid payment

4. The Plaintiff was aware of the Voyager Bank commandeering two days before participating in the poker game (June 27 announcement, game on June 29-30). By choosing to participate despite this knowledge, the Plaintiff assumed the risk of payment delays due to banking issues.

5. Gambling Fraud under Section 6 of the Commercial Standards Act specifically requires "fraudulently misrepresenting how a gambling activity is conducted." This claim fails as a matter of law:

a. The statute explicitly targets misrepresentations about the conduct of the gambling activity itself - the rules, odds, mechanics, or operation of the game. It does NOT cover post-game payment disputes. The Defendant:

• Never misrepresented the poker rules
• Never misrepresented the odds or probabilities
• Never misrepresented how hands would be played or winners determined
• The poker game was conducted exactly as represented on PokerNow.club

b. Fraud requires a false statement made with the intent to deceive. The Defendant:

• Made no false statements about the game before, during, or after play
• Always acknowledged the Plaintiff won $11,124
• Truthfully explained the banking situation preventing payment
• Never induced the Plaintiff to participate through any misrepresentation

c. The misrepresentation must relate to how the activity "is conducted" (present tense), meaning the actual gameplay. Any issues arising AFTER the game concluded cannot retroactively make the conduct of the game fraudulent.

d. The Plaintiff's own evidence (P-002, P-003, P-004) shows:

• The poker game proceeded normally
• Cards were dealt properly
• Winners were determined correctly
• No player complained about the game's conduct

e. If payment disputes constituted gambling fraud, then every delayed payment would be criminal. The statute targets deceptive gambling operations (rigged games, false odds), not contractual payment obligations arising from fairly conducted games.

6. Embezzlement under Section 8 of the Commercial Standards Act requires ALL of the following elements: (a) withholding assets, (b) for the purpose of conversion, (c) assets that were entrusted, and (d) for personal gain. The Plaintiff cannot prove any of these elements:

a. The Defendant never had physical possession of the $11,124 to withhold. The funds remained in Voyager Bank, which was commandeered by the government. One cannot withhold what one does not possess.

b. As established in Commonwealth v. Galavance [2023] FCR 59, conversion means "to exercise ownership inconsistent with the real owner's right of possession." The Defendant:

• Never exercised any ownership over the funds
• Never used the funds for any purpose
• Always acknowledged the Plaintiff's right to the winnings
• Made efforts to transfer ownership despite banking restrictions

c. In a poker game, winnings are not "entrusted" to the losing player. The obligation to pay arises from a contractual debt, not from a fiduciary relationship. The statute's example refers to "spending company funds" - a scenario involving pre-existing entrustment. Here, no funds were ever entrusted to the Defendant for safekeeping.

d. The Defendant gained absolutely nothing from the payment delay:

• No financial benefit accrued to the Defendant
• No interest was earned on the funds
• No assets were acquired with the funds
• The delay actually harmed the Defendant in this litigation

e. The statute contemplates intentional misappropriation (e.g., "spending company funds for personal gain"). Here, the Defendant's inability to pay was caused by government action, not criminal intent.

7. In Commonwealth of Redmont V. v__d [2023] FCR 98, embezzlement charges were dropped when the defendant returned the money upon being questioned. Similarly, the Defendant here offered payment before being summoned and has now paid in full. (D-001)

8. Punitive Damages under the Legal Damages Act require "outrageous conduct." The Defendant's conduct was not outrageous:
a. Banking restrictions were beyond the Defendant's control
b. Defendant communicated the reason for the delay
c. Plaintiff's impatience does not transform a payment delay into outrageous conduct
d. Defendant made good faith efforts to resolve the matter

9. In MegaMinerM v. Vortex [2024] FCR 90 it involved a casino operator who refused to help a plaintiff redeem winnings due to improperly set up chest shops. Here:
a. Defendant never refused to pay
b. Delay was caused by external banking issues, not the Defendant's systems
c. Defendant actively communicated about the delay

III. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: D-001

Spoiler: D-002

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 4th day of July 2025

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The Defendant respectfully moves this Court to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice pursuant to Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim), and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

I. RULE 5.5 - LACK OF CLAIM
1. Section 6 of the Commercial Standards Act defines gambling fraud as "the act of fraudulently misrepresenting how a gambling activity is conducted."

2. The Plaintiff's complaint alleges only that Defendant "refused to pay the owed amount" after the poker game concluded.

3. Payment disputes arising after a gambling activity has concluded do not constitute misrepresentations about "how a gambling activity is conducted."

4. The statute specifically targets misrepresentations about the conduct of gambling (rules, odds, game mechanics) - not post-game contractual payment obligations.

5. Accepting Plaintiff's interpretation would transform every delayed gambling debt into potential criminal fraud, which cannot be the legislative intent.

6. Section 8 of the Commercial Standards Act requires ALL four elements: (a) withholding assets (b) for the purpose of conversion (c) that were entrusted (d) for personal gain.

7. The Plaintiff's complaint fails to allege facts supporting any of these required elements:

a. The complaint does not allege Defendant ever possessed the $11,124 to withhold.

b. Per Commonwealth v. Galavance [2023] FCR 59, conversion means "to exercise ownership inconsistent with the real owner's right of possession." A payment delay is not conversion.

c. Poker winnings create contractual debts, not fiduciary relationships. The statute's example - "spending company funds" - shows the type of pre-existing entrustment required.

d. The complaint contains no allegation that Defendant gained anything from the delay.

8. The complaint describes, at most, a breach of contract, not gambling fraud or embezzlement.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 4th day of July 2025

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

DocTheory
Counterplaintiff

v.

Maxib02
Counterdefendant

COMPLAINT

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE COUNTERPLAINTIFF

The Counterdefendant has filed a frivolous lawsuit with no serious purpose or value, engaging in outrageous conduct to harass me through the legal system. After winning $11,124 in a poker game, the Counterdefendant knew that Voyager Bank had been commandeered by the government before we even played. When I couldn't immediately pay due to the bank situation, I tried to communicate but was blocked. Through counsel, I offered to pay the full amount before this lawsuit started - this offer was refused. The Counterdefendant then filed this baseless suit claiming "gambling fraud" and "embezzlement" for what is clearly a simple contract dispute over a payment delayed by government action. Even after I paid the full $11,124 owed after receiving help, they continue pursuing this meritless case. Continuing litigation after being paid in full demonstrates this lawsuit has no serious purpose other than harassment. This outrageous abuse of the legal system warrants substantial punitive damages.

I. PARTIES
1. DocTheory (Counterplaintiff)
2. Maxib02 (Counterdefendant)

II. FACTS
1. Counterplaintiff owed Counterdefendant $11,124 from a poker game on June 29-30, 2025.
2. Counterdefendant was aware that Voyager Bank was commandeered by the government before participating in the poker game (June 27 announcement) (P-005).
3. Counterplaintiff made efforts to withdraw money to pay, but was unable due to the bank commandeering.
4. Counterdefendant blocked Counterplaintiff in direct messages, preventing communication (P-006).
5. Through counsel, Counterplaintiff offered to pay the full $11,124 before this lawsuit proceeded (D-002).
6. Counterdefendant refused the settlement offer and proceeded with the lawsuit instead.
7. Counterdefendant filed claims of "gambling fraud" and "embezzlement" for a simple contract dispute.
8. Counterplaintiff has now paid the full $11,124 owed, thanks to 3rd party assistance (D-001).
9. Counterdefendant continues pursuing this lawsuit despite receiving full payment.
10. Counterdefendant seeks $3,000 in punitive damages and $4,237.20 in legal fees beyond the debt that has already been paid.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Under Part III, Section 4 of the Criminal Code Act, the Counterdefendant has lodged a legal case that has no serious purpose or value by:
a. Filing gambling fraud claims when no misrepresentation about game conduct occurred
b. Filing embezzlement claims for a simple contract debt with no entrustment or conversion
c. Pursuing litigation after being offered full payment through counsel
d. Continuing litigation after receiving full payment of the $11,124 owed
e. Seeking punitive damages for a payment delay caused by government action
f. Blocking communication, then complaining about "ignored messages"
g. Seeking an additional $7,237.20 beyond a debt that has been paid in full

This outrageous conduct constitutes an abuse of the legal system that warrants substantial punitive damages to deter such frivolous litigation.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Counterplaintiff seeks the following from the Counterdefendant:

1. $10,000 in punitive damages for the Counterdefendant's outrageous conduct in filing this frivolous lawsuit
2. Maximum amount in legal fees, pursuant to the Legal Damages Act

V. EVIDENCE
1. P-005 showing Counterdefendant's knowledge of bank commandeering
2. P-006 showing Counterdefendant blocked Counterplaintiff
3. D-001 showing full payment of $11,124
4. D-002 showing pre-litigation settlement offer

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 4th day of July 2025

 

[JunkCereal]

Plaintiff shall have 24 hours to provide a response to the Motion to Dismiss.

Discovery is temporarily postponed until further notice.

 

[12700k]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Maxib02
Plaintiff

v.

DocTheory
Defendant

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF IN-GAME TRANSACTION LOGS

I. INTRODUCTION
The Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court to compel the Defendant to produce in-game transaction logs documenting financial activity from June 30th, 2025 onward. These records are essential to evaluating the Defendant’s conduct and are directly relevant to the Plaintiff’s claim of Embezzlement under §8 of the Commercial Standards Act.

II. GROUNDS FOR MOTION
1. The Plaintiff has alleged that the Defendant withheld assets entrusted to them for payout and used those funds for personal gain.
2. The Defendant claimed financial incapacity due to Voyager’s seizure, yet has allegedly continued spending money in-game.
3. The requested in-game transaction logs are necessary to determine whether the Defendant converted entrusted assets for personal use, which is a key element of §8.
4. The Plaintiff is preparing a formal response to the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, and the logs are material to rebutting the Defendant’s claims.
5. Rule 4.7 of the Court Rules requires that relevant material be provided under sanction of contempt and perjury. These logs meet that standard.

III. REQUESTED MATERIALS
The Plaintiff requests that the Court compel the Defendant to produce:
- A complete in-game transaction history from June 30, 2025 to the present
- Including all deposits, withdrawals, purchases, and transfers made through in-game systems
- From any balances or in-game DBs

IV. CONCLUSION
The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant this Motion to Compel and order the Defendant to produce the requested in-game transaction logs within a reasonable timeframe.

DATED: This 4th day of July 2025

 

[12700k]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Maxib02
Plaintiff

v.

DocTheory
Defendant

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISMISS

I. INTRODUCTION
The Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court for a 24-hour extension to file a formal response to the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. This request is made in good faith and is necessary to incorporate material evidence relevant to the Plaintiff’s embezzlement claim under §8 of the Commercial Standards Act.

II. GROUNDS FOR MOTION
1. The Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Compel In-Game Transaction Logs from the Defendant, which are essential to evaluating whether the Defendant converted entrusted assets for personal gain.
2. These logs are directly relevant to the Plaintiff’s embezzlement claim and will materially affect the response to the Motion to Dismiss.
3. The Plaintiff is not seeking delay, but rather a brief extension to ensure the response is complete, accurate, and supported by evidence.
4. Granting this extension will not prejudice the Defendant and will promote procedural fairness.

III. REQUESTED RELIEF
The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:
- Extend the deadline to respond to the Motion to Dismiss by 24 hours,
- Or until the Defendant produces the requested in-game transaction logs, whichever occurs first.

IV. CONCLUSION
The Plaintiff respectfully asks the Court to grant this Motion for Extension of Time so that the response to the Motion to Dismiss may be filed with the benefit of relevant financial records.

DATED: This 4th day of July 2025

 

[ToadKing]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Maxib02
Plaintiff

v.

DocTheory
Defendant

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF IN-GAME TRANSACTION LOGS

I. INTRODUCTION
The Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court to compel the Defendant to produce in-game transaction logs documenting financial activity from June 30th, 2025 onward. These records are essential to evaluating the Defendant’s conduct and are directly relevant to the Plaintiff’s claim of Embezzlement under §8 of the Commercial Standards Act.

II. GROUNDS FOR MOTION
1. The Plaintiff has alleged that the Defendant withheld assets entrusted to them for payout and used those funds for personal gain.
2. The Defendant claimed financial incapacity due to Voyager’s seizure, yet has allegedly continued spending money in-game.
3. The requested in-game transaction logs are necessary to determine whether the Defendant converted entrusted assets for personal use, which is a key element of §8.
4. The Plaintiff is preparing a formal response to the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, and the logs are material to rebutting the Defendant’s claims.
5. Rule 4.7 of the Court Rules requires that relevant material be provided under sanction of contempt and perjury. These logs meet that standard.

III. REQUESTED MATERIALS
The Plaintiff requests that the Court compel the Defendant to produce:
- A complete in-game transaction history from June 30, 2025 to the present
- Including all deposits, withdrawals, purchases, and transfers made through in-game systems
- From any balances or in-game DBs

IV. CONCLUSION
The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant this Motion to Compel and order the Defendant to produce the requested in-game transaction logs within a reasonable timeframe.

DATED: This 4th day of July 2025

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The Plaintiff's Motion to Compel violates this Court's order that "Discovery is temporarily postponed until further notice." Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement) requests cannot be made while discovery is currently suspended by judicial order.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

The requested transaction logs are not relevant to the pending Motion to Dismiss, which challenges whether the Plaintiff has stated legally sufficient claims under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim). Even if Defendant spent money after the 30th June, 2025, this would not:

• Establish that poker winnings were "entrusted" to Defendant
• Show Defendant possessed the $11,124
• Transform a contractual debt into embezzlement
• Prove "conversion" under Commonwealth v. Galavance [2023] FCR 59,

The Motion to Dismiss is a pure question of law based on the complaint's allegations.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

The Plaintiff's Motion states "The Defendant claimed financial incapacity due to Voyager's seizure, yet has allegedly continued spending money in-game." This assumes facts not in evidence. The Plaintiff has presented no evidence that Defendant "continued spending money in-game." Neither the complaint nor any submitted evidence contains this allegation. The Defendant has never confirmed such spending. The Motion improperly assumes unproven facts as the basis for its discovery request.

 

[12700k]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The Plaintiff's Motion to Compel violates this Court's order that "Discovery is temporarily postponed until further notice." Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement) requests cannot be made while discovery is currently suspended by judicial order.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION: BREACH OF PROCEDURE

I. INTRODUCTION

The Defendant objects to the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel on the basis that discovery is currently suspended. However, the Plaintiff’s motion is not a request for general discovery under Rule 4.7—it is a narrowly tailored motion for the production of specific, in-game financial records directly relevant to the embezzlement claim and the Defendant’s own statements in the Motion to Dismiss.

II. CLARIFICATION OF MOTION’S SCOPE

1. The Plaintiff is not seeking full discovery or opening discovery prematurely.

2. The motion requests specific logs that are procedurally material to the Defendant’s claim that they were unable to pay the Plaintiff due to Voyager’s seizure.

3. The Court has discretion to permit targeted evidentiary production when it bears directly on a pending motion or resolves factual uncertainty raised by the Defendant.

III. MATERIAL TO MOTION TO DISMISS

The Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss cites financial incapacity as central to their defense.

- The Plaintiff is entitled to challenge that assertion using the Defendant’s own spending data.

- Without these logs, the Plaintiff is procedurally disadvantaged and unable to respond fully.

IV. CONCLUSION

The Plaintiff respectfully asks the Court to overrule the objection and recognize that the Motion to Compel does not violate the discovery suspension order. Instead, it is a procedurally valid and narrowly tailored request for evidentiary material directly tied to rebutting the Motion to Dismiss.

DATED: This 4th day of July 2025

 

[JunkCereal]

A question for either party: was a portion of the total amount a buy-in from Plaintiff, as suggested in P-003, or did Plaintiff start the game with none of their own money?

 

[12700k]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

The requested transaction logs are not relevant to the pending Motion to Dismiss, which challenges whether the Plaintiff has stated legally sufficient claims under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim). Even if Defendant spent money after the 30th June, 2025, this would not:

• Establish that poker winnings were "entrusted" to Defendant
• Show Defendant possessed the $11,124
• Transform a contractual debt into embezzlement
• Prove "conversion" under Commonwealth v. Galavance [2023] FCR 59,

The Motion to Dismiss is a pure question of law based on the complaint's allegations.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION: RELEVANCE

I. INTRODUCTION

The Defendant objects on grounds that in-game transaction logs are irrelevant to the pending Motion to Dismiss. However, this objection mischaracterizes both the Plaintiff’s claim and the purpose of the logs. The Plaintiff respectfully submits that the records are directly relevant to evaluating whether the Defendant engaged in embezzlement under §8 of the Commercial Standards Act, and that the Defendant’s statements in their motion materially open the door for such evidentiary review.

II. CLARIFICATION OF EMBEZZLEMENT CLAIM

The Defendant argues that transaction logs cannot prove embezzlement because:

- The Plaintiff did not physically entrust assets

- The Defendant may not have possessed $11,124

- The claim is purely contractual

These are premature legal conclusions. Under §8, conversion of entrusted assets for personal gain is what matters—not whether the Plaintiff handed over money. The poker game itself, with an agreed-upon payout structure, created an implied entrustment, supported by MegaMinerM v. Vortex [2024] FCR 90, where the court upheld casino-based betting as an enforceable exchange. Logs showing continued in-game spending help establish conversion, contradicting the Defendant’s claim of financial incapacity.

III. RESPONSE TO GALAVANCE CITATION

The Defendant invokes Commonwealth v. Galavance [2023] FCR 59 to assert that possession of funds alone is insufficient. The Plaintiff agrees. That is why spending behavior post-game is relevant: it demonstrates active use of assets while refusing payout. This behavior is not passive possession—it’s personal gain derived from withheld funds.

IV. MATERIAL TO MOTION TO DISMISS

Rule 5.5 requires that a complaint state a claim with factual plausibility. The Defendant contests this plausibility based on alleged incapacity. The Plaintiff seeks logs to challenge that narrative and show the Defendant’s financial behavior contradicts their own defense. That makes the requested records procedurally essential, not tangential.

V. CONCLUSION

The Plaintiff respectfully asks the Court to overrule the relevance objection and grant the Motion to Compel In-Game Transaction Logs. The records are vital to evaluating the embezzlement claim and rebutting the Motion to Dismiss.

DATED: This 4th day of July 2025

 

[12700k]

A question for either party: was a portion of the total amount a buy-in from Plaintiff, as suggested in P-003, or did Plaintiff start the game with none of their own money?

Your honor, a portion of the total amount was a buy-in from the Plaintiff.

 

[12700k]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

The Plaintiff's Motion states "The Defendant claimed financial incapacity due to Voyager's seizure, yet has allegedly continued spending money in-game." This assumes facts not in evidence. The Plaintiff has presented no evidence that Defendant "continued spending money in-game." Neither the complaint nor any submitted evidence contains this allegation. The Defendant has never confirmed such spending. The Motion improperly assumes unproven facts as the basis for its discovery request.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION: ASSUMPTION OF FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

I. INTRODUCTION

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel improperly assumes facts not in evidence—specifically, that the Defendant continued spending money in-game despite claiming financial incapacity. However, the Plaintiff’s motion does not present this claim as proven fact; rather, it raises a plausible inference based on the Defendant’s own representations and requests targeted evidence to confirm or refute this behavior.

II. BASIS FOR REQUEST

1. The Defendant has argued financial incapacity stemming from the Voyager seizure.

2. The Plaintiff seeks in-game transaction logs to evaluate whether spending occurred after the date of seizure, which would undermine the claim of incapacity.

3. The Motion to Compel does not assume spending occurred—it seeks evidence to assess whether it did. This is standard practice under Rule 5.5, which supports reasonable factual inquiry tied to a legal claim.

III. PROCEDURAL VALIDITY

The Plaintiff’s motion is carefully framed to request narrowly tailored records that are material to the pending embezzlement claim under §8 of the Commercial Standards Act.

- No facts were improperly stated as established.

- The Defendant’s own argument about financial incapacity invites scrutiny of post-game financial behavior.

- Courts routinely allow limited evidentiary access to clarify contested facts at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

IV. CONCLUSION

The Plaintiff respectfully asks the Court to overrule the objection. The Motion to Compel seeks verification of a plausibly inferred fact, not confirmation of an assumed one. The request is procedurally sound and central to rebutting the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

DATED: This 4th day of July 2025

 

[JunkCereal]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The Defendant respectfully moves this Court to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice pursuant to Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim), and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

I. RULE 5.5 - LACK OF CLAIM
1. Section 6 of the Commercial Standards Act defines gambling fraud as "the act of fraudulently misrepresenting how a gambling activity is conducted."

2. The Plaintiff's complaint alleges only that Defendant "refused to pay the owed amount" after the poker game concluded.

3. Payment disputes arising after a gambling activity has concluded do not constitute misrepresentations about "how a gambling activity is conducted."

4. The statute specifically targets misrepresentations about the conduct of gambling (rules, odds, game mechanics) - not post-game contractual payment obligations.

5. Accepting Plaintiff's interpretation would transform every delayed gambling debt into potential criminal fraud, which cannot be the legislative intent.

6. Section 8 of the Commercial Standards Act requires ALL four elements: (a) withholding assets (b) for the purpose of conversion (c) that were entrusted (d) for personal gain.

7. The Plaintiff's complaint fails to allege facts supporting any of these required elements:

a. The complaint does not allege Defendant ever possessed the $11,124 to withhold.

b. Per Commonwealth v. Galavance [2023] FCR 59, conversion means "to exercise ownership inconsistent with the real owner's right of possession." A payment delay is not conversion.

c. Poker winnings create contractual debts, not fiduciary relationships. The statute's example - "spending company funds" - shows the type of pre-existing entrustment required.

d. The complaint contains no allegation that Defendant gained anything from the delay.

8. The complaint describes, at most, a breach of contract, not gambling fraud or embezzlement.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 4th day of July 2025

It seems that a portion of the money withheld from Plaintiff was originally their own. That fact does raise concerns related to these statutes. You may continue to develop your interpretative arguments, but the Motion to Dismiss is denied.

Discovery shall now begin and will be set to end 72 hours from the time of this post.

 

[12700k]

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF MOTIONS

The Plaintiff respectfully withdraws the following motions:
1. Motion to Compel In-Game Transaction Logs (filed July 4, 2025)
2. Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Motion to Dismiss (filed July 4, 2025)

These motions are no longer necessary due to the Court's denial of the Motion to Dismiss and the commencement of discovery.

DATED: July 4, 2025

 

[ToadKing]

It seems that a portion of the money withheld from Plaintiff was originally their own. That fact does raise concerns related to these statutes. You may continue to develop your interpretative arguments, but the Motion to Dismiss is denied.

Discovery shall now begin and will be set to end 72 hours from the time of this post.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

The Defendant respectfully moves this Court to reconsider its denial of the Motion to Dismiss, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. When a player makes a buy-in in poker, that money becomes part of the pot and is no longer their money - it is at risk.

2. The Plaintiff voluntarily wagered $2,500 by buying into the poker game. When they won, they won $11,124 total - not "$2,500 of their own money plus $8,624 of others' money."

3. Poker buy-ins are wagers, not deposits. The Plaintiff was not "entrusting" $2,500 to the Defendant for safekeeping as required for embezzlement under Section 8.

4. Winners win the entire pot. Losers lose their buy-in. This is how poker works.

5. The Plaintiff's buy-in does not create the "entrustment" required for embezzlement. They risked their money in a game of chance.

6. The Plaintiff's buy-in is irrelevant to gambling fraud under Section 6, which requires "fraudulently misrepresenting how a gambling activity is conducted."

7. No misrepresentation about game rules, odds, or conduct occurred regardless of buy-in amount.

8. The dispute remains about post-game payment delayed by bank commandeering, not game conduct.

9. This remains a simple contract dispute - Plaintiff won $11,124, Defendant couldn't immediately pay due to government action, Defendant has now paid in full.

10. If buying into poker creates liability for payment delays, every casino and poker game would face potential embezzlement charges for payment issues.

11. The Court's interpretation would mean winners become "trustees" of losers' buy-ins, creating absurd liability for ordinary poker games.

12. The fundamental legal deficiencies identified in the Motion to Dismiss remain unchanged by the buy-in revelation.

DATED: This 4th day of July 2025

 

[JunkCereal]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Maxib02 v. DocTheory [2025] DCR 46
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The claims for relief in the complaint are based on defunct laws. The Criminal Code Act (or "CCA") Part I § 4 provides that, "Where any other Act, regulation, directive, or rule conflicts with a provision of this Code, this Code shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency and the conflicting act will be updated to reflect the content of this act." (Emphasis removed.) Part VII § 6 of the same act provides a replacement for embezzlement and Part VII § 9 provides a replacement for gambling fraud. Because the replacing laws diverge by a substantial degree with the originals found in the Commercial Standards Act (or "CSA") and were in effect at the time of the events in question, this case fails to state a valid claim for relief. This case is therefore sua sponte dismissed.

Since the conflict between the CCA and the CSA isn’t entirely clear to readers of the law, this dismissal will be without prejudice, but Plaintiff is encouraged to be especially rigorous when writing new claims for relief if they choose to refile.

DocTheory v. Maxib02
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Since a trial will not be conducted for the original case, the countersuit - if Defendant still wishes to pursue it - should be refiled as a separate case to allow this thread to be retired. The countersuit is dismissed without prejudice.

The Court would like to remind both parties that the courts do not exist to make people money from complicated situations. They are here to provide justice, to the extent permissible by law. If this matter can be resolved outside of the courts, it would be in both parties’ interest to do so.

The District Court thanks everyone involved. Court is adjourned.