Lawsuit: Pending ToadKing v. StateStreet [2025] FCR 134

ToadKing

ToadKing

Illegal Lawyer
Public Defender
Representative
Supporter
Aventura Resident
5th Anniversary Change Maker Popular in the Polls Statesman
ToadKing__
ToadKing__
Public Defender
Joined
Apr 4, 2025
Messages
344

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

ToadKing
Plaintiff

v.

StateStreet
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendants as follows:

The Defendant breached a valid contract with the Plaintiff by failing to process a lawful withdrawal request for funds deposited in the Plaintiff's StateStreet Savings Account, in direct violation of Section 4 of the StateStreet Savings Account Contract, constituting Breach of Contract under Section 7 of the Contracts Act.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES​

1. ToadKing
2. StateStreet
3. JediAJMan (Owner of StateStreet)

​

II. FACTS​

1. StateStreet is an in-game company owned by JediAJMan. (P-001)
2. StateStreet does not maintain an active Company Docket in the Company Registry. (P-002)
3. Pursuant to Section 10 of the Legal Entity Act, an in-game company without an associated Incorporated Entity is classified as a sole proprietorship.
4. StateStreet is registered as a tax-exempt financial institution. (P-003)
5. On 12 August 2025, the Plaintiff opened a StateStreet Savings Account and executed the StateStreet Savings Account Contract with the Defendant. (P-004)
6. On the same date, the Plaintiff deposited a total of $1,000,500 into StateStreet, comprising $1,000,000 as a deposit and $500 as the one-time Account Setup Fee. (P-005)
7. Section 4 of the StateStreet Savings Account Contract states: "Withdrawals can be made at any time but may be subject to a maximum daily withdrawal limit in periods of high transaction volume or financial instability."
8. Section 4 further provides that a minimum of $15,000 must be kept in the account.
9. On 20 October 2025, the Plaintiff submitted a written withdrawal request to StateStreet via direct message on the DC forums, requesting the withdrawal of $900,000 from the Plaintiff's account. (P-006)
10. The withdrawal request of $900,000 was within the permissible withdrawal amount, leaving a balance of $100,000 in the account.
11. As of the date of this Complaint, a period of 57 days has elapsed since the withdrawal request was submitted.
12. The Defendant has not responded to the withdrawal request.
13. The Defendant has not processed the withdrawal or returned any portion of the Plaintiff's funds.
14. For 57 days, Defendant has maintained enough money to process Plaintiff's withdrawal request.
15. JediAJMan, the owner of StateStreet, has been permanently deported from the Commonwealth of Redmont. (P-007)
16. Pursuant to Section 10(3) of the Legal Entity Act, all assets and liabilities of a sole proprietorship are regarded as assets and liabilities of the owner.
17. Pursuant to Section 10(4) of the Legal Entity Act, sole proprietorships shall not have any liability or bankruptcy protection.

​

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

Section 7 of the Contracts Act states:
7 - Breach of Contract
(1) A breach of contract occurs when a party fails to fulfil its contractual obligations.
(a) Remedies for breach may include damages, specific performance, or other equitable relief.
Click to expand...
The Defendant breached the StateStreet Savings Account Contract under Section 7 of the Contracts Act by:
  1. Failing to process the Plaintiff's lawful withdrawal request submitted on 20 October 2025, in direct violation of Section 4 of the Contract, which guarantees that withdrawals can be made "at any time".
  2. Failing to respond to or acknowledge the Plaintiff's withdrawal request for a period exceeding 57 days.
  3. Retaining the Plaintiff's deposited funds of $1,000,000 without lawful justification.
Pursuant to Section 10 of the Legal Entity Act:
10 - Sole Proprietorship
(1) Sole proprietorships shall be the in-game companies without an associated Incorporated Entity
(2) Sole proprietorships shall still be regarded as a legal entity
(3) All assets and liabilities of the sole proprietorship shall be regarded as assets and liabilities of the owner of the sole proprietorship
(4) Sole proprietorships shall not have any liability or bankruptcy protection
(5) The director of a sole proprietorship shall always be the owner of the in-game company
Click to expand...
JediAJMan, as the owner of StateStreet (a sole proprietorship), is personally liable for all obligations of StateStreet, including the return of the Plaintiff's deposited funds.

​

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant the following relief:

1. $1,000,000 in Compensatory Damages representing the principal amount deposited by the Plaintiff and unlawfully withheld by the Defendant, pursuant to Section 4 of the Legal Damages Act.

2. Punitive Damages calculated as ($5,000 per day from the date of the withdrawal request through the date of judgment), to punish the Defendant's outrageous conduct in refusing to return the Plaintiff's funds and to deter similar conduct in the future, pursuant to Section 5 of the Legal Damages Act.

3. 30% Legal Fees pursuant to Section 9 of the Legal Damages Act as a pro se litigant.

EVIDENCE​

Screenshot 2025-12-16 121748.png
1765890298729.png
1765890346460.png
1765890407851.png
1765890483958.png

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 16th day of December 2025



Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

The Plaintiff moves this Court to enter Default Judgment against the Defendant.
1. JediAJMan, the owner of StateStreet, has been permanently deported from the Commonwealth of Redmont (P-005)
2. Permanently deported individuals do not possess legal standing or rights.
3. StateStreet, as a sole proprietorship owned by JediAJMan, cannot be represented independently of its owner pursuant to Section 10 of the Legal Entity Act.

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant the full prayer for relief, noting that this same Court granted full prayers in a similar permanent deportation case - Fish's Financial LLC v. .AstuteSundew823 [2025] FCR 122

 
Last edited:

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS

Plaintiff requests this lawsuit be paused until the ongoing Staff investigation has concluded.

 
Technofied said:
May it pleasure the court,

All of JediAJMan’s assets are currently frozen and not in the purview of the Commonwealth as they are being held in the capacity of an ongoing Staff investigation. This extends to any businesses this player holds.
Click to expand...


The Court acknowledges this suit and the pending staff investigation.

Having being pleasured by Lord Tech, the Court does stay these proceedings indefinitely.
 
I am the new presiding officer of this case

Lord @Technofied what is the status of the staff's investigation and is it still ongoing?
 
Technofied said:
Dearest beloved @ko531

We are close to finished with our investigation, it is with my greatest intentions to pleasure the Courts by informing them when the investigation has concluded at our earliest convenience.
Click to expand...
The Plaintiff is semi-pleasured, but hopes we can finish off expeditiously.
 
May it pleasure the court,

Staff have concluded their investigation into JediAJMan's assets, we have had to withdraw some assets to repay affected players as part of an investigation into illegitimately obtained goods.

All remaining assets are now within the purview of the Commonwealth, as such it is my belief this lawsuit may proceed.
 
Technofied said:
May it pleasure the court,

Staff have concluded their investigation into JediAJMan's assets, we have had to withdraw some assets to repay affected players as part of an investigation into illegitimately obtained goods.

All remaining assets are now within the purview of the Commonwealth, as such it is my belief this lawsuit may proceed.
Click to expand...
Just for clarity, can you explain "now within the purview of the Commonwealth"?
 
As the defendant is banned, we will skip summons and a public defender will be assigned.
 
ko531 said:
As the defendant is banned, we will skip summons and a public defender will be assigned.
Click to expand...
Your Honour,

As laid out in the facts, StateStreet is a sole propietorship owned by the Defendant. As you've just affirmed, the "defendant is banned".

Pursuant to Section 10(3) of the Legal Entity Act, all assets and liabilities of a sole proprietorship are regarded as assets and liabilities of the owner.

Therefore, as the Defendant possess no legal standing or rights within the Commonwealth, on what basis is the Defendant entitled to a Public Defender?
 
ToadKing said:
Your Honour,

As laid out in the facts, StateStreet is a sole propietorship owned by the Defendant. As you've just affirmed, the "defendant is banned".

Pursuant to Section 10(3) of the Legal Entity Act, all assets and liabilities of a sole proprietorship are regarded as assets and liabilities of the owner.

Therefore, as the Defendant possess no legal standing or rights within the Commonwealth, on what basis is the Defendant entitled to a Public Defender?
Click to expand...
Yes you are correct, deported and banned players aren not entiled to the right to representation. I apologize for my lapse in judgement.

This case is in recess pending verdict
 
Your Honor,

The Office of the Acting President of Redmont seeks to offer an amicus brief regarding the legal status of Statestreet at this time in light of Section 5(2)(b) of the Business Structuring Act Sunset Act.
 
Franciscus said:
Your Honor,

The Office of the Acting President of Redmont seeks to offer an amicus brief regarding the legal status of Statestreet at this time in light of Section 5(2)(b) of the Business Structuring Act Sunset Act.
Click to expand...

Objection


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

Your Honour,

As much as the Plaintiff adores and appreciates Multiman's commentary on legal matters, this request to provide an amicus brief is wholly improper.

Consistent with the ruling of then Justice Dr_Eksplosive in Vanguard & Co v. Naezaratheus [2025] FCR 32, this court should deny the request as the court is currently in recess. Given that Multiman was the reason for the Objection in that case, I would have hoped he'd remember that a request such as this is improper.

In spite of the above, Section 5(2)(b) of the Business Structuring Act Sunset Act has no bearing on StateStreet, as that provision applies only to firms subject to dissolution under the Act. StateStreet is a sole proprietorship and therefore was never subject to dissolution or conversion, rendering Section 5(2)(b) inapplicable.

The Plaintiff has been deprived of his funds for over 90 days, and in the interest of justice and procedural efficiency, these proceedings should not be delayed further.

 
Last edited:
Franciscus said:
Your Honor,

The Office of the Acting President of Redmont seeks to offer an amicus brief regarding the legal status of Statestreet at this time in light of Section 5(2)(b) of the Business Structuring Act Sunset Act.
Click to expand...
Granted. Please do so in the next 48 hours.

ToadKing said:

Objection


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

Your Honour,

As much as the Plaintiff adores and appreciates Multiman's commentary on legal matters, this request to provide an amicus brief is wholly improper.

Consistent with the ruling of then Justice Dr_Eksplosive in Vanguard & Co v. Naezaratheus [2025] FCR 32, this court should deny the request as the court is currently in recess. Given that Multiman was the reason for the Objection in that case, I would have hoped he'd remember that a request such as this is improper.

In spite of the above, Section 5(2)(b) of the Business Structuring Act Sunset Act has no bearing on StateStreet, as that provision applies only to firms subject to dissolution under the Act. StateStreet is a sole proprietorship and therefore was never subject to dissolution or conversion, rendering Section 5(2)(b) inapplicable.

The Plaintiff has been deprived of his funds for over 90 days, and in the interest of justice and procedural efficiency, these proceedings should not be delayed further.

Click to expand...
Overruled. The circumstances are much different from the cited precedent. Due to the staff investigation and the deported/banned status of the defendant, it would have been impossible to file any brief while the case was active because it never truly was active.
 

Brief


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
AMICUS BRIEF - ACTING PRESIDENT MULTIMAN155

Your Honor:

I will keep this brief, well, brief.

Under Section 5 of the BSASA, "All firms under the Business Structuring Act shall be given 8 weeks from the enactment of this act to transition to the Legal Entities Act, failure to do this will result in dissolution". The law makes one exception to dissolution ("a firm shall not be dissolved and instead converted into a sole proprietorship provided that there is only 1 shareholder") a separate set of exceptions to timeline ("as long as a firm continues to make reasonable efforts to transit (including but not limited to negotiations with shareholders)" or "as long as the firm is involved in an active lawsuit").

This leaves several questions for the Court to consider:

  1. Was StateStreet a legal entity registered under the Business Structuring Act at the time of the commencement of this lawsuit? (To get this information, one might seek to compel it from the Department of Commerce, who historically maintained these records.)
  2. If StateStreet were a registered entity under the BSA, was it owned by multiple shareholders, or a single shareholder?
  3. If StateStreet were a single-owner registered entity under the BSA, how does the timeline exception under BSASA 5(2)(b) interact with the instruction to not dissolve such firms under BSASA 5(1)(a)? Does this timeline exception delay the date of conversion to solve proprietorship in the same way that it would delay dissolution?
  4. If StateStreet is not actually a sole proprietorship at this moment, is it entitled to a public defender as a legal entity?
The Office of the Acting President urges the Court to consider these questions in this case.

 

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

The Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court to compel the Department of Commerce to produce the following:

  1. Any registration documents for StateStreet under the Business Structuring Act, if such documents exist.
  2. Records indicating the number and identity of any shareholders of StateStreet at the time of the BSASA's enactment, if StateStreet was registered as a Corporation.
  3. Any records relating to StateStreet's transition (or failure to transition) under Section 5 of the BSASA.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top