Lawsuit: Dismissed Culls v. Plura72 [2025] FCR 94

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Muggy21

Citizen
Justice Department
Commerce Department
Education Department
Supporter
Muggy21
Muggy21
State Prosecutor
Joined
Jul 1, 2022
Messages
69

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Culls (represented by Muggy21)
Plaintiff

v.

Plura72
Defendant


COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

Plura has hurt me by causing great confusion and tarnishing my reputation. I have been hurt by this attempt of forcibly divorcing me; people think I am a bad person. I have been caused with great confusion, including the adoptions of Glasshouse child, and I have also experienced many, like I have been having IRL issues and I have been barely keeping it under control, and I wish that Plura gets the full punishment.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES
1. Plura72 (Defendant)
2. Culls (Plaintiff)
3. _king_bass_ (Lawyer who conducted illegal divorce)

II. FACTS (Timezone: EST)
1. On 9-1-2025 at 20:01:12, Plura72 posted the following advertisement in-game: “[20:01:12] AD » Looking for a lawyer, i need to get divorced - Plura72”
2. On 9-1-2025 at 20:01:37, Plura72 stated the following in-game general chat: “[Rep.] Detective Plura72 » culls, he is leaving DC”
3. On 9-1-2025 at 20:02:20, Plura72 stated the following in-game general chat: “[Rep.] Detective Plura72 » this time i ill try to get a wife instead”
4. On 9-1-2025 at 20:02:53, Plura72 stated the following in-game general chat: “[Rep.] Detective Plura72 » i am paying 1000$ for whoever divorces me”
5. On 9-1-2025 at 20:03:00, Plura72 stated the following in-game general chat: “[Rep.] Detective Plura72 » i am tired of waiting”
6. On 9-1-2-25 at 20:03:34, _king_bass_ stated the following in-game general chat: “Barrister _king_bass_ » I am chasing that mfing ambulance”
7. On 9-1-25 at 20:04:08, _king_bass_ divorced Plura72 from Culls.
8. Since marriage registration, no explicit authorization was given to terminate this marriage.
9. This marriage was registered on the DPA Forums: https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/culls-and-plura72-marriage-registration.31213/
10. Plura72 abandoned a child in the Glasshouse Family, CraftySciGuy.
(https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/culls-adoption-registration.31234/)
11. On 9-1-25 at 20:06:46, Plura72 stated the following in-game general chat “Plura72 » try to convince culls to gimme the house”
12. Plura72 stated his or her net-worth was $500,000.


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
A.DIVORCE FRAUD
  1. The Marriage Act requires that a divorce must be filed in Court if the marriage is registered. This marriage was registered (P-002) and Defendant did not file an action in any Court to divorce Culls (Marriage Act).
  2. As argued, Divorce Fraud is the intentional use of deceptive or unlawful means to dissolve a marriage without legal authority or the consent of both spouses. In this instance, neither legal authority nor consent are present.
  3. Plura72 solicited and paid for the unlawful termination of the marriage in violation of the Marriage Act.
  4. Defendant’s actions undermine the integrity of the marriage registry system, which exists to ensure certainty, legitimacy, and transparency in marital relations. By orchestrating a divorce outside the law, Defendant not only injured the Plaintiff but also weakened public trust in the very institutions meant to safeguard familial rights.

A1. WHY IS THIS FRAUD?
  1. Fraud is defined as “an intentional or reckless misrepresentation or omission of an important fact, especially a material one, to a victim who justifiably relies on that misrepresentation; and the victim party or entity suffered actual, quantifiable injury or damages as a result of the misrepresentation or omission.” (Commercial Standards Act)

Misrepresentation: The Defendant represented and solicited the public that this marriage could be unilaterally dissolved.

Knowledge of Falsity: Public records demonstrate that Plura72 is an Attorney. Defendant must reasonably know that not all divorces can be immediately dissolved.

Reliance: Defendant, by soliciting for a lawyer to divorce, induced reliance on the public, and Culls, to believe that the marriage was over, and to claim marital assets outside of the Courts.

Injury: Plaintiff suffered significant losses: Loss of enjoyment, reputational harm, and potential deprivation of marital assets.

5. Accordingly, the Defendant’s actions satisfy the definition of fraud under the Commercial Standards Act when paired with the Marriage Act’s procedural requirements, establishing both a statutory breach and a tortious wrong committed against the Plaintiff.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
  1. In relief relating to compensatory damages, Plaintiff prays for a monetary award of no less than $39,000.00 in marital asset split.
  2. In relief relating to compensatory damages, Plaintiff prays for an additional monetary award of no less than $20,000 in physical properties unknown to Plaintiff held by Defendant.
  3. In relief relating to compensatory damages, Plaintiff prays for an additional monetary award of fifty percent of all assets held in banks, exchanges, or any other business that stores value on behalf of a client. Plaintiff asserts this award should not exceed $250,000, but can’t affirm this ceiling.
  4. A monetary award of no less than $50,000 in punitive damages for the outrageous conduct of Defendant.
  5. A monetary award of no less than $50,000 in consequential damages for Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont, Worsening of existing Conditions, and other legal theories pursuable under law.
  6. An award of legal fees as permitted under the Legal Damages Act. Plaintiff wishes for an award no greater than 30% of total award.

V. JURISDICTION
  1. Plaintiff asserts that damages exceed the monetary limits of the District Court.

Witnesses:
Culls
Plura72
_king_bass_ (Discord/Forums is unknown to plaintiff)
Evidence
P-001 (Chat Logs): [20:01:12] [Render thread/INFO]: [System] [CHAT] AD » Looking for a lawyer, i ne - Pastebin.com
P-002 (Marriage Registration): https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/culls-and-plura72-marriage-registration.31213/

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 9th day of September, 2025.


1757463662860.png

 

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Defendant is in possession of property that the Court may consider marital assets. Plaintiff requests that Defendant is enjoined from selling or transferring the following properties

  1. C110
  2. AV_C077
  3. OR_C061
  4. AB004
  5. OR_APT4

All properties may reasonably be considered martial property. If they are, their disposal by Defendant would be material harm.

 
Your Honour,

We've been informed that C110 is not fully owned by Plura72. It's held in right of Fishs. Plaintiff does not wish to unduly interfere with a third-party business.

Plaintiff requests, if EI is granted, to remove C110 from its motion.
 
Muggy21 said:

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Defendant is in possession of property that the Court may consider marital assets. Plaintiff requests that Defendant is enjoined from selling or transferring the following properties

  1. C110
  2. AV_C077
  3. OR_C061
  4. AB004
  5. OR_APT4

All properties may reasonably be considered martial property. If they are, their disposal by Defendant would be material harm.

Click to expand...
Granted. The Defendant cannot sell or transfer the properties until this case is over.
 

Writ of Summons


@Plura72 is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Culls v. Plura72 [2025] FCR 94

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.

 
I will be representing Plura72 in this case, I will file the answer to complaint shortly.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2025-09-11 223900.png
    Screenshot 2025-09-11 223900.png
    23.2 KB · Views: 13
ElysiaCrynn said:
I will be representing Plura72 in this case, I will file the answer to complaint shortly.
Click to expand...
The Defense has 72 hours to file their answer.
 

Answer to Complaint


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

Culls (represented by Muggy21)
Plaintiff

v.

Plura72 (represented by Fishs Legal Firm)
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. AFFIRM
2. AFFIRM
3. AFFIRM
4. AFFIRM
5. AFFIRM
6. AFFIRM
7. AFFIRM
8. DENY. The Plaintiff’s public declarations of intent to leave the server constituted authorization under the Marriage Act 10(1).
9. AFFIRM
10. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY The matter of child custody is not pertinent to the claims of fraud or financial division in this civil case and is improperly included to prejudice the Court.
11. AFFIRM
12. AFFIRM that the statement was made but not the legitimacy of its claim.

II. DEFENCES
1. Failure to state a claim of fraud.
In Section 6 of the Commercial Standards Act it outlines fraud as being "An intentional or reckless misrepresentation or omission of an important fact, especially a material one, to a victim who justifiably relies on that misrepresentation; and the victim party or entity suffered actual, quantifiable injury or damages as a result of the misrepresentation or omission."

This case fails to meet this standard due to the following reasons:
(a) No Misrepresentation or Omission to the Plaintiff, The Defendant made no misrepresentation to the Plaintiff. The Defendant's actions and public statements were transparent about his desire for a divorce. The alleged misrepresentation would have been to _king_bass_, not to the Plaintiff.

(b) No Reliance by the Plaintiff: The Plaintiff did not rely on any statement made by the Defendant to his detriment. Since all alleged misrepresentations or omissions were about the Plaintiff who would have complete knowledge of the matter, they cannot be said to have relied on it.

(c) No Injury from Misrepresentation: All alleged injuries suffered by the Plaintiff would result from the act of the divorce itself, not from a misrepresentation he relied on. Furthermore, Defences #3 and #4 demonstrate that there are no quantifiable injuries suffered as a result of this divorce.

(d) Lack of Fraudulent Intent: The Defendant acted with the reasonable and good faith belief that the marriage was already legally deregistered due to the Plaintiff’s public declaration of intent to leave. The Defendant's intent was to end an already defunct marriage marriage in-game, not to deceive the Plaintiff for financial or material gain.

2. The Marriage Was Already Deregistered
The core of this matter rests on the Marriage Act 10(1) which states: 'If the one or more party has not joined the server in 2 months or has declared their intent to leave the server the following shall apply: ... (c) The marriage shall be marked as deregistered.'

As evidenced by in-game chat logs (D-001, D-002, D-003) and server messages (D-004), the Plaintiff made multiple declarations of his intent to leave the server prior to the events in question. Statements such as “I’m leaving yes”, "I'm just done," and "DONE of all this" before leaving the game abruptly constitute a declaration under this Act. There is no format requirement for this declaration, only the necessity of declaring intent to leave which the Plaintiff did meet.

Furthermore, these declarations had also caused multiple other members of DC to believe and substantiate the claim that the Plaintiff intended to leave the server (D-008, D-009, D-010), justifying the declaration’s legitimacy.

Consequently at the moment of these declarations, the marriage was legally deregistered by operation of law, negating the requirement in the Marriage Act 7(2) as it only applies to registered marriages. Therefore, the Defendant's subsequent actions to effectuate the divorce in-game did not violate the procedural requirements for a registered marriage, as the registration was already void. The Defendant acted based upon the reasonable and firm belief that his spouse had intent to leave both him and the server, thus terminating the marriage.

3. No Legal Basis for Division of Assets
The Plaintiff's prayer for a division of marital assets is entirely without merit. The Marriage Act 6(1) outlines: "Married couples may choose to share finances, such as, but not limited to, financial burdens and gains, if they both consent on their marriage registration thread."

A review of this registration thread (P-002) reveals that neither party consented to sharing finances or assets, therefore all property and funds held by the Defendant are his own. Furthermore, The Marriage Act 10(1)(b) states 'Both parties shall keep any assets attained during, before, or after the marriage.' which directly governs this situation, thus the Plaintiff's claim to over $300,000 of the Defendant's assets is completely baseless.

4. Unwarranted and Speculative Damages
The Plaintiff’s request for damages is entirely without merit and appears calculated to inflate the case value rather than to compensate for any actual harm.

(a) Punitive Damages: The Legal Damages Act 5(2)(a) requires "outrageous" conduct for punitive damages. The Defendant's actions were a direct response to the Plaintiff expressing intent to leave the server, which the Plaintiff contributed to their belief in. This is a procedural dispute not an act of malicious or outrageous conduct designed to inflict harm meeting the high standard outlined by the law.

(b) Consequential Damages

  • (i) Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont: The Plaintiff explicitly stated “I feel that DC isn’t fun for me anymore” before the divorce occurred (D-002, D-001) among other expressions of his lack of enjoyment in DC on the 29th of August, before the divorce occurred. He cannot claim damages for a loss of enjoyment that he admits he already experienced. In fact his return to the server thereafter suggests the opposite, that he in fact had an improvement in enjoyment on the server.
  • (ii) Worsening of existing Conditions: The Plaintiff admits to pre-existing "IRL issues." Attributing any worsening of these conditions to an in-game divorce that he precipitated is speculative, unsubstantiated, and fails to meet the "balance of probabilities" standard required by law. It is also brought into question when this divorce has not been proven to bring any quantifiable harm to the Plaintiff otherwise.

(c) Compensatory Damages: As established in Defence #3, there is no legal basis for claiming “marital assets” in this case.

5. Malicious Prosecution and Bad Faith
The Plaintiff's actions (D-005, D-006, D-007) and outrageous damage claims strongly suggest that this case is not a good-faith effort to seek justice, but is instead an opportunistic attempt to leverage a minor procedural misunderstanding, which he himself precipitated by announcing his intent to leave the server, into a massive financial windfall. The Plaintiff’s statements reveal a motive centred on self-enrichment which undermines the credibility of his entire complaint and demonstrates bad faith. Statements (D-007) such as "Plura72 ya better reply to the case or else I get that 150k" show an intent to extort the Defendant not litigate a marital suit.

Evidence:
D-001.png
D-002.png
D-003.png
D-004.png
D-005.png
D-006.png
D-007.png
D-008.png
D-009.png
D-010.png

Witnesses:
Culls
Plura72
_king_bass_

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 13th day of September 2025

 

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO NOLLE PROSEQUI - SETTLEMENT REACHED

Your honor, marriage is a sacred bond between players. It should deeply burden us all when a bright, vibrant couple chooses to separate. The attorneys in this case, seeing the benefits of a speedy and prudent resolution, instead of a public and notorious feud, have worked out a settlement agreement.


Your Honour,

Parties request for an Order to divorce Plura72 from Culls. Parties have come to an amicable settlement agreement that is confidential.



Further, we request Dismissal with prejudice. We thank the Court for its time.


 
Your Honour,

The Defence confirms that a settlement has been reached. We agree to the dismissal and ask the Court to issue the requested divorce.
 
Granted. The case is dismissed with prejudice. The court is adjourned.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top