Lawsuit: Pending Multiman155 et. al v. slapout [2026] FCR 52

Franciscus · Jun 15, 2026

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Multiman155,
Plaintiff;
TyTube_Yt,
Co-Plaintiff;
&
vaxx,
Co-Plaintiff

v.

Slapout
Defendant

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiffs complain against the Defendant as follows:

On 10 June 2026, Slapout approached Plaintiff and both co-Plaintiffs, offering to sell a golden drill. In each case, Defendant demanded payment before sending over the drill. When Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiffs entered into a contract to purchase the drill, Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiff fulfilled their obligations, but Defendant defendant dropped a normal chest instead of a golden drill. On at least one occasion, Slapout attempted to claim that the appearance of a chest was a mere bug, but the staff team confirmed that no bug was present.

Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiffs relied upon Defendant's statements that Defendant would provide a golden drill in exchange for cash when entering into these transactions. Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiffs, however, were deceived by Defendant.

Plaintiff and Co-Plantiffs complain that Defendant's behavior constitutes three separate cognizable civil torts under Part VI of the RCCA: Breach of Contract and Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce.

Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, punitive damages, and legal fees.

I. PARTIES

Multiman155 (Plaintiff)
TyTube_Yt (Co-Plaintiff)
vaxx (Co-Plaintiff)
ElegantAlly (co-Plaintiff, also known as “Ally La Banca”)
SixAnemone9780 (co-Plaintiff, also known by alias “kachuaa”)
396Vette (co-Plaintiff)
Yatblue (also known under alias “Slapout”) (Defendant)

II. FACTS

On 10 June 2026, Defendant slapout contacted Plaintiff Multiman155 to inquire if Plaintiff was interested in purchasing a golden drill (Exhibit P-001)
Subsequently, Plaintiff and Defendant met in Aventura, where Defendant was holding a chest-shaped object in his hand (Exhibit P-002, P-003).
Defendant asked Plaintiff if Plaintiff wanted to move to a discrete location (Exhibit P-003).
Plaintiff and Defendant negotiated over terms of payment while in Aventura, with Defendant expressing concern regarding people having previously "scammed" defendant (Exhibit P-004).
After negotiation, Plaintiff and Defendant agreed that Plaintiff would pay Defendant $10,000 upfront in exchange for "this golden drill" (Exhibits P-005 through P-008).
This negotiation, including offer and acceptance by both parties, created a verbal contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant.
Plaintiff paid Defendant $10,000 subsequent to the agreement in fact 5 being reached (Exhibit P-008).
After receiving payment, Defendant transferred Plaintiff an ordinary chest rather than a golden drill (Exhibits P-009, P-010).
Prior to litigation, Plaintiff offered Defendant the opportunity to return the $10,000 in exchange for the ordinary chest given to Plaintiff (Exhibit P-010).
Plaintiff relied on Defendant's representation that Defendant was to provide Plaintiff "this golden drill" when sending Defendant $10,000.
Plaintiff was induced to enter into a contract by Defendant's representation that Defendant would give Plaintiff "this golden drill".
Defendant deceived Plaintiff in connection with the sale of a golden drill.
As a result of Defendant's misrepresentations, Plaintiff suffered a loss of $10,000 in cash.
As of the time of filing, Defendant has still not delivered Plaintiff a golden drill.
On the early morning of 11 June 2026, Defendant and Co-Plaintiff vaxx discussed Co-Plaintiff purchasing a golden drill from Defendant in exchange for $10,000 (Exhibit P-012 and P-013).
Defendant offered to "drop this golden drill to vaxx" once Co-Plaintiff vaxx transferred Defendant $10,000 (Exhibit P-013).
Co-Plaintiff vaxx accepted this offer, creating a verbal contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant.
Co-Plaintiff vaxx transferred Defendant $10,000, after which Defendant dropped a chest to Co-Plaintiff vaxx rather than the promised golden drill (Exhibit P-014 and P-015).
Co-Plaintiff vaxx was induced to enter into a contract by Defendant's representation that Defendant would give Co-Plaintiff Vaxx "this golden drill".
Defendant deceived Co-Plaintiff vaxx in connection with the sale of a golden drill.
As a result of Defendant's misrepresentations, Co-Plaintiff Vaxx suffered a loss of $10,000 in cash.
As of the time of filing, Defendant has still not delivered Co-Plaintiff vaxx a golden drill.
On the early morning of 11 June 2026, Defendant and Co-Plaintiff TyTube_Yt discussed Co-Plaintiff purchasing a golden drill from Defendant in exchange for $8,000 (Exhibit P-016 through P-018).
Co-Plaintiff TyTube_Yt and Defendant agreed that Co-Plaintiff TyTube_Yt would pay Defendant $4,000 upfront, then Defendant would drop the golden drill, then Co-Plaintiff would pay Defendant another $4,000 (Exhibit P-016 through P-023).
The agreement in the aforementioned fact constituted a verbal contract between Co-Plaintiff TyTube_yt and Defendant.
Co-Plaintiff TyTube_Yt paid Defendant $4,000, but Defendant dropped Co-Plaintiff a plain chest rather than a golden drill.
Co-Plaintiff TyTube_yt was induced to enter into a contract by Defendant's representation that Defendant would give Co-Plaintiff TyTube a golden drill.
Defendant deceived Co-Plaintiff TyTube_yt in connection with the sale of a golden drill.
As a result of Defendant's misrepresentations, Co-Plaintiff TyTube_yt suffered a loss of $4,000 in cash.
As of the time of filing, Defendant has still not delivered Co-Plaintiff TyTube_yt a golden drill.
At all times relevant, Defendant had more than sufficient playtime to form a contract (see: Exhibit P-024).
Defendant's misrepresentations that Defendant would provide Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiffs with a golden drill after payment was done with actual knowledge as to the falsity of the misrepresentations.
Co-Plaintiff 396Vette was seeking to purchase a golden drill.
Defendant messaged 396Vette and represented that he was selling a golden drill.
Relying on Defendant’s representation, 396Vette expressed interest in purchasing the golden drill.
396Vette and Defendant met at 396Vette’s shop to complete the transaction.
Defendant represented that he would provide 396Vette with the golden drill after 396Vette paid him 10,000 dollars.
396Vette agreed to the transaction and paid Defendant 10,000 dollars.
After receiving the 10,000 dollars, Defendant did not provide 396Vette with a golden drill.
Instead, Defendant delivered or threw to 396Vette a chest called “Golden Drill.”
The chest Defendant delivered was not a golden drill.
After delivering the renamed chest, Defendant teleported away.
Defendant then ignored 396Vette’s follow-up messages.
396Vette suffered damages of 10,000 dollars.
On or about June 11, 2026, at approximately 11:00 AM IST, Defendant messaged kachuaa in-game.
Defendant represented that he could sell kachuaa a golden drill for 11,000 dollars.
kachuaa had previously seen Defendant on the server and trusted him.
Relying on Defendant’s representation, kachuaa told Defendant to come to the hospital so that kachuaa could pay Defendant and receive the drill.
Defendant came to the hospital.
Defendant sent kachuaa a contract, as shown in kachuaa’s screenshots.
kachuaa paid Defendant 11,000 dollars.
After receiving the 11,000 dollars, Defendant did not provide kachuaa with a golden drill.
Instead, Defendant gave kachuaa a chest called “golden drill.”
The chest Defendant delivered was not a golden drill.
The chest did not contain a golden drill.
After receiving payment and delivering the renamed chest, Defendant placed kachuaa on his ignore list.
Because Defendant placed kachuaa on ignore, kachuaa could not message Defendant afterward.
kachuaa suffered damages of 11,000 dollars.
Plaintiff Ally La Banca encountered Defendant’s chestshop near the post office.
The chestshop was located in a high-traffic area where players commonly pass while accessing the post office.
At the time of Ally’s purchase, the server was experiencing performance issues.
The server had recently been DDoSed, and chunks were not loading properly.
Ally was walking to the post office to pick up a package from robotalan.
Ally did not intend to shop at Defendant’s chestshop.
Due to lag and chunk-loading issues, Ally accidentally clicked Defendant’s chestshop.
Defendant’s chestshop was identified as chest#6wx.
Defendant’s chestshop represented or appeared to represent that it was selling a golden drill.
As a result of the chestshop transaction, Ally paid or was charged 10,000 dollars.
Ally did not receive a golden drill.
Instead, Ally received a chest renamed “golden drill.”
The item Ally received was not a golden drill.
The item Ally received did not contain a golden drill.
Ally suffered damages of 10,000 dollars.
Ally opened a staff ticket soon after the transaction.
In that ticket, staff member Sypder_Crypt stated or indicated that Ally was “another… victim.”
Staff did not refund Ally or otherwise reverse the transaction.
Ally contacted Defendant seeking a refund.
Ally gave Defendant 48 hours to refund the 10,000 dollars before pursuing legal action.
Defendant did not reimburse Ally within that 48-hour period.
Defendant was unjustly enriched because Ally paid 10,000 dollars for what appeared to be a golden drill and received only a renamed chest.
Defendant’s chestshop was misleading because it caused or permitted players to believe they were purchasing a golden drill when the actual item was merely a renamed chest.
Defendant used an alternative account when causing harm to Plaintiff and co-Plaintiffs.

All times and dates are in Eastern Daylight Time (UTC-4) except where otherwise noted.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

III.A. Breach of Contract

The Redmont Civil Code Act defines the civil violation of Breach of Contract as a strict liability violation as follows:

A person commits a violation if the person:
(a) fails to perform obligations under a valid and enforceable contract without lawful excuse.
This violation shall not occur where:
(b) the contract is void or voidable; or
(c) performance was rendered impossible by circumstances beyond the party’s control; or
(d) the other party materially breached the contract first; or
(e) the party was induced to enter the contract through misrepresentation or duress.

(RCCA, Part VI, Section 1).

The civil violation requires Plaintiff to prove three things on balance of probabilities: (1) that defendant failed to perform; (2) that a "valid and enforceable contract" existed; and (3) that Defendant lacked lawful excuse for failure to perform (lawful excuses are given in RCCA, Part VI, Section 1(b)-(e)).

Contracts are formed subject to the five-point test laid out in the Contracts Act:

(2) A valid contract is formed when the following legal test is met:
(a) Offer. An offer is a clear and unequivocal communication expressing a party's willingness to enter into a contract, either explicitly stated or reasonably inferred from the circumstances.
(b) Acceptance. Acceptance is the positive and unambiguous response to an offer communicated to the offeror, mirroring the terms of the offer and conveyed through various means.
(c) Consideration. Consideration, an essential element, involves the exchange of something of value between parties, with sufficiency though not necessarily adequacy. Consideration can be tangible or intanglbie.
(d) Intent. Parties must demonstrate a clear intention to create legal obligations for the contract to be valid.
(e) Capacity. Parties entering into a contract must possess the legal capacity to do so. Players with low playtime may lack the capacity to fairly enter a contract.

(Contracts Act, Section 4(2)).

Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiffs allege that Defendant entered into a valid contract with each of them, then failed to perform the Defendant's obligations in the respective contracts, triggering liability for the Defendant under the RCCA owing to defendant's lack of lawful excuse for failure to perform. We will analyze contract formation below alongside specific applications of the law to the facts relating to Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiffs.

III.A.1. Defendant committed breach of contract against Plaintiff Multiman155

First, we examine whether a contract was formed between Defendant and Plaintiff Multiman155. Then we will examine failure to perform, as well as the absence of legal excuse for the failure to perform.

On whether a contract existed, we conclude that every part of a contract existed. Defendant initially engaged with Plaintiff regarding the offer and began negotiations (Exhibit P-001). Following negotiations, Defendant offered that Plaintiff would give Defendant $10,000 in exchange for the gold drill (Exhibit P-006). This offer was in very clear terms Defendant would give the Plaintiff "this golden drill once [Plaintiff] transfers [Defendant] [$]10k" (Exhibit P-006). Plaintiff's acceptance was clear: "I accept" (Exhibit P-007). Consideration was clear and explicit: Plaintiff would give $10k, and Defendant would give a golden drill in consideration for that payment. Intent to form a legal agreement was present and is established by the back-and-forth nature of the negotiation; such intent may be inferred "in civil cases, where an assumption of intent is given based on the circumstances provided" (Inknet v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 86; see also: Krisztie v. zko0 [2025] FCR 13, inferring intent from an image containing an offer to sell a rank through an auction; Lucaaasserole v. Naezaratheus et al. [2025] FCR 50, finding that "the Contracts Act only requires the demonstration of intent and not actual intent", and concluding that intent was shown by conversations between contract parties, even when actual intent by the defendant was to scam the plaintiff). Capacity is also clear; Plaintiff has been President of the Commonwealth of Redmont, while Defendant had sufficient playtime at all times relevant (see: Exhibit P-024). We thus conclude that a contract was indeed formed, as offer, acceptance, consideraiton, intent, and capacity are all present.

On examining failure to perform, the record is clear: Plaintiff paid Defendant $10,000, but Defendant gave Plaintiff an ordinary chest rather than a golden drill. After Plaintiff offered to reverse the transaction instead of suing, Defendant did not take up Plaintiff on the offer. Instead, Defendant pocketed the cash and did not deliver.

No legal excuse existed for the Defendant's behavior. The contract was valid, performance would have been possible had Defendant provided Plaintiff a golden drill, Plaintiff upheld all contractual obligations by paying Defendant the $10,000, and the contract was freely entered into. No plausible argument for frustration or force majeure exists.

As such, Defendant failed to perform their obligations on a valid and enforceable contract, without a legal excuse for doing so. This is a crystal clear breach of contract.

III.A.2. Defendant committed breach of contract against Co-Plaintiff TyTube_Yt

Next, we examine whether a contract was formed between Defendant and Co-Plaintiff TyTube_Yt. Then we will examine failure to perform, as well as the absence of legal excuse for the failure to perform.

On whether a contract existed, examine whether every part of a contract existed. After negotiations (see: Exhibit P-016 and P-017) Co-Plainfiff offered that Co-Plaintiff would pay $4,000 to Defendant in exchange for the golden drill (Exhibit P-020). Defendant accepted (Exhibit P-021). Consideration here was obvious: it was money from the Co-Plaintiff in exchange for a golden drill from the defendant. Intent can be inferred by action (see: supra III.A.1); after walking a distance from the area where negotiations occurrred (see: Exhibit P-016 and P-017), Defendant instructed Co-Plaintiff to perform (Exhibit P-022) and dropped Co-Plaintiff a chest after Plaintiff paid Defendant $4,000 (Exhibit P-022 and P-023). Defendant had sufficient playtime at all times relevant (see: Exhibit P-024), while Co-Plaintiff also had sufficient playtime (see: Exhibit P-025). As we have offer, acceptance, consideration, intent, and capacity, a valid contract was formed.

On examining failure to perform, the record is clear: Co-Plaintiff paid Defendant the initial $4,000, but Defendant gave Co-Plaintiff an ordinary chest rather than a golden drill.

No legal excuse existed for the Defendant's behavior. The contract was valid, performance would have been possible had Defendant provided Co-Plaintiff a golden drill, Co-Plaintiff upheld all contractual obligations by paying Defendant the initial payment of $4,000, and the contract was freely entered into. No plausible argument for frustration or force majeure exists.

As such, Defendant again failed to perform their obligations on a valid and enforceable contract, without a legal excuse for doing so. This is, again, a crystal clear breach of contract.

III.A.3. Defendant committed breach of contract against Co-Plaintiff vaxx

Finally, we examine whether a contract was formed between Defendant and Co-Plaintiff vaxx. Then we will examine failure to perform, as well as the absence of legal excuse for the failure to perform.

On whether a contract existed, examine whether every part of a contract existed. Defendant offered to provide Co-Plaintiff vaxx "this golden drill" in exchange for $10,000 (Exhibit P-013). Co-Plaintiff accepted the offer and paid the Defendant $10,000 (Exhibits P-014 and P-015). Consideration is clear; Co-Plaintiff would give up $10,000 and Defendant would give up one golden drill. Intent can be inferred by action (see: supra III.A.1); in this case, Plaintiff's performance of the obligation, combined with Defendant's dropping of a plain chest (see: Exhibit P-015), indicates both parties understood this to be binding. And both parties had capacity to enter into the contract; neither lacked playtime (see: Exhibit P-024 and Exhibit P-026). As we have offer, acceptance, consideration, intent, and capacity, a contract was formed between Co-Plaintiff and Defendant.

On examining failure to perform, the record is clear: Co-Plaintiff paid Defendant $10,000, but Defendant gave Co-Plaintiff an ordinary chest rather than a golden drill. Because breach of contract is a tort of strict liability, this is sufficient to meet the criterion of non-performance.

What's more legal excuse existed for the Defendant's behavior. The contract was valid, performance would have been possible had Defendant provided Co-Plaintiff a golden drill, Co-Plaintiff upheld all contractual obligations by paying Defendant the initial payment of $4,000, and the contract was freely entered into. No plausible argument for frustration or force majeure exists.

As such, Defendant again failed to perform their obligations on a valid and enforceable contract, without a legal excuse for doing so. This is, again, a crystal clear breach of contract.

III.A.4. Defendant Committed Breach of Contract against new co-Plaintiffs 396Vette and Kachuaa

Defendant entered into valid contracts with 396Vette and kachuaa, in a similar way to the contracts with the above parties. Defendant agreed to provide 396Vette with a golden drill in exchange for $10,000. 396Vette performed by paying Defendant $10,000, but Defendant breached the contract by failing to provide a golden drill. Defendant instead provided a chest labeled “Golden Drill.” Defendant also agreed to provide kachuaa with a golden drill in exchange for $11,000. kachuaa performed by paying Defendant $11,000, but Defendant breached the agreement by failing to provide a golden drill. Defendant instead provided a chest called “golden drill.”

This is clear material breach, which caused harm to these co-Plaintiffs, as Defendant failed to provide the essential element they had promised in consideration: the drills.

III.B. Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce

Under the Redmont Civil Code Act, Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce is a civil violation defined as follows:

A person commits a violation if the person:
(a) engages in conduct that is misleading, deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive another person in connection with the promotion, sale, or supply of goods or services.
This violation shall not occur where:
(b) the conduct constitutes puffery (obvious exaggeration); or
(c) the plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care in relying on the conduct.

(RCCA, Part VI, Section 3).

Plaintiff, together with co-Plaintiffs, allege that Defendant committed Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce against them. As a golden drill is a kind of good, deception or misleading conduct in connection with the sale of, promotion of, or supply of golden drills warrants examination.

III.B.1. Defendant committed Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce against Plaintiff and both original Co-Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Multiman155 entered into a contract with Defendant after Defendant stated, "I, slapout, will give Multiman155 this Golden Drill once he transfers me 10k" (Exhibit P-007; supra III.A.1). This statement contained a deception: "this Golden Drill" was not actually a golden drill, but instead a mere chest. After Plaintiff provided Defendant $10,000, Defendant dropped Plaintiff a mere chest. Defendant acted surprised. But the staff team confirmed that, upon review of item drop logs, there was not a bug (Exhibit P-027).

This reflects consciousness of guilt and an attempt to deflect and deceive. Defendant took the money and ran, after having deceived Plaintiff in the course of purportedly attempting to sell a drill. And the delivery of a plain chest, as if it were to suffice for a golden drill, makes it clear that the intent was plainly to deceive when considering that Defendant did not take any action to fix this.

By engaging in conduct that was misleading and deceptive towards Multiman155 in connection with the (promotion of a) sale/supply of a golden drill to Plaintiff, Defendant thus committed Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce against Plaintiff.

III.B.2. Defendant committed Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce against Co-Plaintiff TyTube_Yt

Co-Plaintiff TyTube_Yt entered into a contract with Defendant for Defendant to supply Plaintiff with a golden drill (see: supra, III.A.2). In particular, Defendant agreed to give Co-Plaintiff a golden drill after Co-Plaintiff paid $4,000 (an additional payment of $4,000 was to come after a golden drill were delivered). After negotiations, Co-Plaintiff paid Defendant, but Defendant gave Co-Plaintiff a plain chest rather than a golden drill.

This was a deception on behalf of the Defendant. Because a golden drill held in hand is not distinguishable from a chest by a second party, and because Defendant had agreed to supply Co-Plaintiff with a golden drill, we must conclude that there was deliberate intent to mislead Co-Plaintiff. This is particularly notable inasmuch as the fact pattern between all three Plaintiffs is similar: the Defendant appears to have repeatedly scammed people, which goes to Defendant's intent.

By engaging in conduct that was misleading and deceiving in connection with Defendant's agreement to supply Co-Plaintiff TyTube_Yt a golden drill, Defendant committed Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce.

III.B.3. Defendant committed Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce against Co-Plaintiff Vaxx

Co-Plaintiff Vaxx paid Defendant $10,000 to execute a contract after defendant offered to provide Co-Plaintiff vaxx "this golden drill" in exchange for $10,000 (Exhibit P-013; supra, III.A.3). Defendant, however, had deceived Vaxx; the Defendant was not to actually deliver a golden drill, but instead a chest. Because a golden drill held in hand is not distinguishable from a chest by a second party, and because Defendant had agreed to supply Co-Plaintiff with a golden drill, we must conclude that there was deliberate intent to mislead Co-Plaintiff. This is particularly notable inasmuch as the fact pattern between all three Plaintiffs is similar: the Defendant appears to have repeatedly scammed people, which goes to Defendant's intent.

By engaging in conduct that was misleading and deceiving in connection with Defendant's agreement to supply Co-Plaintiff Vaxx a golden drill, Defendant committed Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce.

III.B.4 Defendant committed Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce against the new parties (ElegantAlly, 396Vette, and kachuaa)

Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Slapout engaged in misleading conduct in trade or commerce by representing, expressly or impliedly, that he was selling genuine golden drills. Plaintiffs further allege that these representations were made in connection with the sale or supply of goods, namely golden drills, and that Defendant’s conduct was misleading or deceptive because Plaintiffs did not receive genuine golden drills after payment. Instead, Plaintiffs received ordinary chests renamed or renamed as “Golden Drill”.

This claim applies to all three newly added Plaintiffs. Defendant allegedly represented to 396Vette that he would provide a golden drill in exchange for $10,000, represented to kachuaa, that he would provide a golden drill in exchange for $11,000, and operated or maintained a chestshop that represented or appeared to represent to Ally that it was selling a golden drill. In each case, Defendant received money while Plaintiffs did not receive the represented item.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s conduct was likely to mislead reasonable players into believing that they were purchasing genuine golden drills. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendant’s conduct caused actual damages totaling at least $31,000, consisting of $10,000 lost by 396Vette, $11,000 lost by kachuaa, and $10,000 lost by Ally.

III.C. Misrepresentation

Under the Redmont Civil Code Act, Misrepresentation is defined as follows:

A person commits a violation if the person:
(a) makes a false statement of fact; and
(b) the statement induces another party to enter into a contract; and
(c) the other party suffers loss as a result.
This violation shall not occur where:
(d) the statement was genuinely believed to be true at the time it was made, and there were reasonable grounds for that belief; or
(e) the plaintiff did not rely on the statement in entering the contract.

(RCCA, Part VI, Section 2).

Plaintiffs allege that Defendant made false statements of material fact when he represented that he was selling genuine golden drills. Defendant represented to 396Vette that 396Vette would receive a golden drill after paying $10,000, Defendant represented to kachuaa that kachuaa would receive a golden drill after paying $11,000, Defendant represented to Multiman155 that Multiman155 would receive a golden drill after paying $10,000, Defendant represented to TyTube_Yt that TyTube_Yt would receive a golden drill after paying $4,000, and Defendant represented to Vaxx that Vaxx would receive a golden drill after paying $10,000. Those statements were false because Defendant did not provide genuine golden drills and instead provided renamed chests.

These (co-)Plaintiffs relied on Defendant’s representations when they paid Defendant. Those representations induced them to enter into the transactions, and they suffered damages when Defendant failed to deliver the promised items.

As to Ally, we in the alternative allege that Defendant’s chestshop labeling and/or presentation constituted a false representation that the chestshop sold a genuine golden drill, when the item actually provided was merely a renamed chest.

Defendant’s misrepresentations, we proffer, caused Plaintiffs’ losses directly or foreseeably.

III.D. Failure to Deliver Goods or Services

Under the Redmont Civil Code Act, the tort of Failure to Deliver Goods or Services is as follows:

A person commits a violation if the person:
(a) fails without lawful excuse to deliver goods or services that they have agreed to supply under a valid transaction or contract.

(RCCA, Part VI, Section 4).

This tort is a strict liability offense, carrying statutory penalties.

Defendant agreed to supply genuine golden drills and failed to deliver the goods he agreed to supply. 396Vette paid Defendant $10,000 in exchange for a golden drill, kachuaa paid Defendant $11,000 in exchange for a golden drill, Multiman155 paid $10,000 in exchange for a golden drill, Vaxx paid $10,000 in exchange for a golden drill, and TyTube_yt paid $4,000 as the first part of the transaction for a golden drill. Defendant did not deliver golden drills to any (co-)Plaintiff. Instead, Defendant delivered renamed chests, which were not the goods promised.

Plaintiffs further allege, in the alternative, that Ally’s chestshop transaction represented the sale of a golden drill and that Defendant failed to deliver the represented good. Ally was charged $10,000 through Defendant’s chestshop and received a chest renamed “golden drill,” not an actual golden drill.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendant had no lawful excuse for failing to deliver the promised goods. Plaintiffs suffered damages because they paid money and received nonconforming items.

III.E. Conversion

The Redmont Civil Code Act defines the tort of Conversion as follows:

A person commits a violation if the person:
(a) wrongfully takes, obtains, or withholds property from an owner; and
(b) intends to deprive the owner of the property or to appropriate it to themselves or a third party; and
(c) the wrongful taking, obtaining, or withholding is committed by:
(i) stealing property with the intent to permanently deprive the owner; or
(ii) obtaining property through deception, lies, or false statements; or
(iii) embezzlement or obtaining property by false pretences; or
(iv) knowingly acquiring lost property without taking reasonable measures to return it to the owner; or
(v) obtaining property by false promise pursuant to a scheme to defraud; or
(vi) extortion.
This violation shall not occur where:
(d) the action occurs in the End, Nether wild, or everwild; or
(e) the defendant reasonably believed they had a right to the property.

(RCCA, Part VII, Section 7).

(Co-)Plaintiffs proffer that money, under the law, is a kind of property for purpose of this tort. It is something that can be owned by someone at a point in time, and it is quite well-recognized that depriving someone of their money can cause them economic harm.

In this case, (co-)Plaintiffs allege that Defendant wrongfully obtained and retained Plaintiffs’ money through deception and false promises.

Defendant represented to 396Vette that 396Vette would receive a golden drill after paying $10,000, Defendant represented to kachuaa that kachuaa would receive a golden drill after paying $11,000, Defendant represented to Multiman155 that Multiman155 would receive a golden drill after paying $10,000, Defendant represented to TyTube_Yt that TyTube_Yt would receive a golden drill after paying $4,000, and Defendant represented to Vaxx that Vaxx would receive a golden drill after paying $10,000. Defendant obtained or retained $10,000 from Ally through a transaction from a misleading chestshop.

In all of these cases, Defendant did not deliver a golden drill, but instead took the money and ran. In some, Defendant chose to ignore a co-Plaintiff in-game, cutting off contact and means by which to ask for funds back. In another, Defendant lied and asserted that Defendant as concerned about scams, and then ignored offers to reverse the transaction. All of this reflects consciousness of guilt, and demonstrates that the money was knowingly obtained by Defendant by deception while intending to keep the money for the Defendant.

Plaintiffs therefore allege that Defendant unlawfully converted Plaintiffs’ monetary property to his own use, harming Plaintiffs.

III.F. Unjust Enrichment

The Redmont Civil Code Act defines the tort of Unjust Enrichment as follows:

A person commits a violation if the person:
(a) obtains and retains a benefit at another’s expense; and
(b) there is no legal justification for retaining the benefit.

(RCCA, Part X, Section 1)

(Co-)Plaintiffs allege that Defendant received and on benefits at Plaintiffs’ expense. Defendant received $10,000 from Multiman155, $4,000 fro TyTube_Yt, $10,000 from 396Vette, $11,000 from kachuaa/Six, and $10,000 from Ally. Defendant retained those funds despite failing to provide genuine golden drills.

There is no legal justification for Defendant to retain Plaintiffs’ money after providing only renamed chests. None. The central point of this tort is to prevent people from enriching themselves at the expense of others unjustly, and the behavior pattern laid out throughout the entire complaint clearly demonstrates that unjust enrichment has occurred.

This claim is pleaded both jointly and in the alternative to all the above claims.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Plaintiff prays that the Court enter judgment providing the following relief:

Compensatory Damages: Plaintiff paid $10,000 to Defendant as did Co-Plaintiff Vaxx. Co-Plaintiff TyTube_Yt paid Defendant $4,000. New Co-Plaintiff ElegantAlly paid $10,000, new co-Plaintiff kachuaa paid $11,000, and new co-Plaintiff 396Vette paid $10,000. In total, this means that making Plaintiff and original co-Plaintiffs whole would take $24,000 plus $31,000 for the new co-Plaintiffs, for a total of $55,000 in compensatory damages. We ask that damages be equitably distributed among the Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiffs in proportion to the size of their loss.
Treble Damages: The Redmont Civil Code Act allows treble damages to be collected in lieu of compensatory damages for the tort of Conversion. Should liability be found for conversion, we ask that all (co-)Plaintiffs on this complaint receive the treble damages, which would total $165,000.
Punitive Damages: Under the RCCA, punitive damages may be awarded when "they are either authorised by statute or unless the conduct of the other party in causing the party’s harm is outrageous" (RCCA, Part III, 3(2)(a)). Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiffs jointly allege that the repeated pattern of taking money from good-faith would-be purchasers of golden drills is plainly outrageous. We also note that the civil violation of Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce explicitly permits civil penalties up to 250 civil penalty units per civil violation. Other torts alleged also permit additional penalties, such as Failure to Deliver Goods or Services carrying a penalty of up to 200 civil penalty units. As such, Plaintiff and original co-Plaintiffs pray for $75,000 in punitive damages for Misleading Conduct, while new co-Plaintiffs pray for an additional $75,000. This total of $150,000 in punitive damages for misleading conduct. Additionally, all (co-Plaintiffs) allege failure to deliver, which would bear an additional $120,000 in civil penalty units. Thus, a total of $270,000 in punitive damages should be awarded and distributed equally among the Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiffs.
Nominal Damages: In the event that no other damages can be awarded by the Court, and only in this alternative, Plaintiff and co-Plaintiffs seek nominal damages in the amount of $7,500 each to acknowledge the harm done by Defendant to the corresponding parties.
Legal Fees: Plaintiff seeks 30% of the total damages awarded as legal fees.

V. Evidence

Exhibit P-016 - Medal Clip 1

Exhibit P-017 - Medal Clip 2

See "Exhibit P-027 - Staff Ticket.pdf"

VI. Witness List

Multiman155
TyTube_Yt
vaxx
slapout
Budgiebud (Mayor of Aventura)
Scassany (Former Secretary of the Department of Education)
Staff Team
ElegantAlly
396Vette
Aelia_Singl3heart
SixAnemone9870
Eenza

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 15 day of June 2026

Franciscus · Jun 15, 2026

Your Honor,

I have erroneously created this filing in the District Court, instead of in the Federal Court. I respectfully ask that this filing be administratively moved to the FCR, where it can be properly handled.

Matthew100x · Jun 15, 2026

Moved.

Muggy21 · Jun 15, 2026

Writ of Summons

@Slapout is commanded to appear before the Federal Court in Multiman155 et al v. Slapout [2026] FCR XX

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.

CreeperTD · Jun 15, 2026

As requested by the Honorable Muggy21, here is my complaint that is now joined with this case.

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Cr_2007 and Klawddddddd (Represented by CreeperTD of Theory, Talion, and Partners Inc.)
Plaintiff

v.

slapout
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On June 10, 2026, the Plaintiff Cr_2007 received a direct message from the Defendant at approximately 5:36 PM CDT, which asked if the Plaintiff wished to buy a golden drill. The Plaintiff responded to that offer, negotiating a price for the purchasing of a golden drill from the Defendant, which ultimately was 8000 DC$. The Defendant led the defendant to a chest shop, in which there was for sale a chest with the item ID of the Golden Drill edited onto it. The Defendant repeatedly assured the Plaintiff that the shop was genuine before the Plaintiff purchased the item from the chest shop. The Plaintiff received only a renamed chest upon using the chest shop, spending 8000 DC$. The other Plaintiff, Klawddddddd, experienced the same on June eleventh, 2026, when the Plaintiff used the same chestshop, spending 10000 DC$ and receiving a renamed Chest.

I. PARTIES
1. Cr_2007 (Plaintiff)
2. Klawddddddd (Plaintiff)
3. slapout (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. On the day of June 10, 2026, at approximately 5:36 PM CDT, Plaintiff Cr_2007 received a message from the Defendant offering to sell a golden drill for 10000 DC$. (P-001)
2. Plaintiff Cr_2007 and the Defendant negotiated the price of the golden drill for the next 4 minutes, ultimately agreeing to a price of 8000 DC$, and the Defendant said to meet in Willow “if interested,” which the Plaintiff then warped to. (P-002, P-003, P-004)
3. Once meeting in Willow, Plaintiff Cr_2007 further conversed with the defendant, and was convinced to modify their agreement and to instead use a chestshop for the purchase, and then proceeded to teleport to Reveille spawn at the request of the Defendant. (P-005)
4. The Defendant then led the Plaintiff to a chest shop located at Revstall029 (2605, 73, 3936), in which an item named “Chest#6WX” was for sale. If a player runs the command /find Chest#6WX, the resulting GUI will display it as a Golden Drill. (P-017, P-022)
5. The Plaintiff then questioned the legitimacy of the offer, leading the Defendant to offer to do a normal exchange without the chest shop, which the Plaintiff was only willing to do if the Defendant mailed it to them first or placed down the drill, both of which the Defendant Refused to do. (P-006, P-008, P-009, P-010)
6. The Plaintiff, after having the Defendant reassure them that the offer was genuine, purchased 1 item named “Chest#6WX” from slapout’s chest shop for the price of 8000 DC$. (P-013, P-023)
7. After the Plaintiff purchased the item, upon examination it was revealed that the item was not a Golden Drill, but rather a renamed chest. (P-015)
8. After the purchase, the Defendant stopped communicating with the Plaintiff, and left the game. (P-014)
9. The next day, on June 11, 2026 at 6:36 PM CDT Plaintiff Klawddddddd received a message from the Defendant offering the same deal: a golden drill for 10000 DC$. The Plaintiff declined. (P-018)
10. Around 10 minutes later, the Plaintiff was contacted by an acquaintance, ilikekoby6576, who talked about how he was offered the same deal by the Defendant, outlining the details given to him. ilikekoby6576 expressed doubts about the deal, and outlined a similar experience to what Plaintiff Cr_2007 experienced, and told the Plaintiff that he declined the deal. (P-019,P-020)
11. After the recounting given by ilikekoby6576, the Plaintiff decided that the seemingly very good deal may be worth the risk, and asked to go see the chest.(P-021)
12. After arriving at the shop, the Plaintiff expressed to his acquaintance that “It is a golden drill,” believing the chestshop to be legitimate. The Plaintiff reasoned that this was true since when entering the name of the item in /find, it appeared as a golden drill. (P-023)
13. The Plaintiff Klawddddddd then purchased 1 item named “Chest6WX” from the Defendant’s chestshop for 10000 DC$ at approximately 6:15 PM CDT. The Plaintiff at first thought that it was in fact a golden drill, and immediately sold it to their acquaintance for the same price (10000 DC$), but ilikekoby6576 quickly came to the realization that it was not actually a drill. The Plaintiff afterwards returned the money to ilikekoby6576. (P-024, P-025)
14. All parties had at least 6 hours of playtime in the last 7 days as of June 13, 2026 at approximately 9:16 PM CDT. (P-026)
14. The Defendant has at the time of filing failed to deliver a golden drill to either Plaintiff, nor has the Defendant returned their money.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Breach of Contract (Redmont Civil Code Act Part VI, §1)
In both incidents, a valid contract was formed between each of the Plaintiffs and the Defendant as defined by Contracts Act §4. In the case of Cr_2007, the contract was actively negotiated and revised through messages before the Plaintiff interacted with a chestshop, clearly displaying an offer in both messages and on the sign in the chestshop, one golden drill. Even if one considers that the sign on the shop itself did not explicitly read golden drill, but rather “Chest#6WX,” the Defendant presented that item in both words and server commands as a golden drill when they set up the chestshop. Although the Plaintiff Klawddddddd did not acknowledge a written offer given by the Defendant, the sign on the chestshop itself constitutes an offer. The action of acceptance was the same for both plaintiffs: the choice to use the chestshop after looking at the offer on the sign. The actions and words of all parties illustrated intent, all parties had the required capacity to enter a contract (at least 6 hours of playtime), and the exchange of something of value was agreed upon and was meant to occur.

The Defendant, however breached the contract by failing to perform their part of the contract, the delivery of a golden drill, after the Plaintiffs performed their part. Either through messages or through text on a sign, the Defendant proposed and agreed to a contract, which they failed to fulfill.

2. Misrepresentation (RCCA Part VI, §2)
The Defendant’s actions clearly fit the definition of Misrepresentation for both plaintiffs in its entirety. As defined by RCCA Part VI §2:

A person commits a violation if the person:
(a) makes a false statement of fact; and
(b) the statement induces another party to enter into a contract; and
(c) the other party suffers loss as a result

The Defendant made a false statement of fact in both words and text: they claimed to be offering a golden drill, and repeatedly swore that the item was in fact a golden drill. This led both Plaintiffs to enter into a contract, which resulted in both failing to receive a golden drill at significant monetary loss.

3. Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce (RCCA Part VI, §3)
The Defendant intentionally engaged in misleading, deceptive conduct with their careful naming of the item to ensure that their chestshop would appear to be offering a legitimate sale rather than a fraudulent one.

4. Failure to Deliver Goods or Services (RCCA Part VI, §4)
The Defendant’s creation of a chestshop that is presented as selling golden drills, and the subsequent failure on the part of the plaintiff to deliver a golden drill following the exchange of money as a result of the use of a chestshop constitutes a failure to provide promised goods under a valid transaction and/or contract.

5. Punitive Damages (RCCA Part III, §3)
The Defendant engaged in outrageous conduct in multiple ways in these two incidents. For one, the Defendant showed a clear intent to disadvantage the Plaintiffs by misrepresenting what was being offered. The Defendant also displayed a clear indifference to the damage caused by his conduct, as he has engaged in the same conduct repeatedly towards multiple individuals. The Defendant has also displayed deception and dishonesty in his overall conduct, shown by his renaming of a regular chest to make it appear as a golden drill when using server commands, among other actions. In addition, as displayed by the two Plaintiffs in this case, the Defendant engaged in the same or similar conduct repeatedly; as shown by the evidence, the Defendant engaged in this type of behavior on at least three separate occasions.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following relief from the Defendant:
1. $18000 in compensatory damages for the losses incurred as a result of the Defendant’s Breach of Contract ($8000 for Cr_2007, $10000 for Klawddddddd) (RCCA Part III §2
2. If compensatory damages are not granted, then restitution in the form of $18000 for those losses (RCCA Part X §1) OR
3. Specific performance in the form of a golden drill (RCCA Part VI §4) OR
4. Rescission of the $18000 in funds (RCCA Part VI §3).
5. $32000 in punitive damages (RCCA Part III §3).
6. Up to 450 Civil Penalty Units (RCCA Part VI §3&4)
7. Legal fees amounting to 30% of the total damages awarded, payable to Theory, Talion & Partners Inc.
Total Primary Claim: $50000 plus up to 450 Civil Penalty Units ($45000) plus up to $28500 in legal fees.

V. EVIDENCE
Note: All redaction was done in the interests of Privacy in accordance with the definition of personal information in Privacy Act §4(1).

Due to issues with the forums, everything is temporarily attached in a Google doc. The evidence will be uploaded directly to a forum post upon the resolution of this issue. Cr_2007 and Klawddddddd v. slapout Evidence List (Temporary)

VI. WITNESSES
1. Cr_2007
2. Klawddddddd
3. slapout

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 15th day of June 2026.

Motion

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

Your Honor,
The Defendant currently has very little in their balance, however the Plaintiff believes that the Defendant has purposefully used the money gained from this incident to purchase valuable items, as can be seen in the evidence labeled P-027. This evidence illustrates that the Defendant may plan to avoid having money in their balance in order to prevent proper collection of money owed in verdicts, and may even attempt to transfer these assets to another account or user without the court’s knowledge during proceedings. The Plaintiff also worries that if the chestshop at Revstall029 is allowed to continue operation, the Defendant will continue to inflict damages on others. Due to these circumstances, the Plaintiff humbly requests that:

1. The Court orders the assets of the Defendant be frozen until a judgement can be reached in light of the evidence that the Defendant may attempt to abscond and frustrate judgement on this case.
2. The Department of Homeland Security seize the Defendant’s chestshop at Revstall029 for the duration of proceedings.

Muggy21 · Jun 15, 2026

CreeperTD said:
Motion

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

Your Honor,
The Defendant currently has very little in their balance, however the Plaintiff believes that the Defendant has purposefully used the money gained from this incident to purchase valuable items, as can be seen in the evidence labeled P-027. This evidence illustrates that the Defendant may plan to avoid having money in their balance in order to prevent proper collection of money owed in verdicts, and may even attempt to transfer these assets to another account or user without the court’s knowledge during proceedings. The Plaintiff also worries that if the chestshop at Revstall029 is allowed to continue operation, the Defendant will continue to inflict damages on others. Due to these circumstances, the Plaintiff humbly requests that:

1. The Court orders the assets of the Defendant be frozen until a judgement can be reached in light of the evidence that the Defendant may attempt to abscond and frustrate judgement on this case.
2. The Department of Homeland Security seize the Defendant’s chestshop at Revstall029 for the duration of proceedings.

Granted.

CreeperTD · Jun 15, 2026

Your Honor,

I wish to inform you of concerning information that I have received. The Defendant appears to be still actively engaging in commerce since the Emergency Injunction was approved, and continues to cause damages to others. This is in direct violation of the Emergency Injunction that was granted.

https://imgur.com/F6BhQGf

Muggy21 · Jun 15, 2026

CreeperTD said:
Your Honor,

I wish to inform you of concerning information that I have received. The Defendant appears to be still actively engaging in commerce since the Emergency Injunction was approved, and continues to cause damages to others. This is in direct violation of the Emergency Injunction that was granted.

https://imgur.com/F6BhQGf

I can't see the image.

CreeperTD · Jun 15, 2026

Might this work? Screenshot (Screenshot)

MJL · Jun 16, 2026

Your honor @Matthew100x, I seek your permission to file a motion to intervene on behalf of @greymc. If permission is not required, I ask you inform me because no one has filed one of these before.

Muggy21 · Jun 16, 2026

MJL said:
Your honor @Matthew100x, I seek your permission to file a motion to intervene on behalf of @greymc. If permission is not required, I ask you inform me because no one has filed one of these before.

View attachment 86391

Granted, please submit a Complaint on behalf of your client.

CreeperTD · Jun 16, 2026

CreeperTD said:
As requested by the Honorable Muggy21, here is my complaint that is now joined with this case.

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Cr_2007 and Klawddddddd (Represented by CreeperTD of Theory, Talion, and Partners Inc.)
Plaintiff

v.

slapout
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

I. PARTIES
1. Cr_2007 (Plaintiff)
2. Klawddddddd (Plaintiff)
3. slapout (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. On the day of June 10, 2026, at approximately 5:36 PM CDT, Plaintiff Cr_2007 received a message from the Defendant offering to sell a golden drill for 10000 DC$. (P-001)
2. Plaintiff Cr_2007 and the Defendant negotiated the price of the golden drill for the next 4 minutes, ultimately agreeing to a price of 8000 DC$, and the Defendant said to meet in Willow “if interested,” which the Plaintiff then warped to. (P-002, P-003, P-004)
3. Once meeting in Willow, Plaintiff Cr_2007 further conversed with the defendant, and was convinced to modify their agreement and to instead use a chestshop for the purchase, and then proceeded to teleport to Reveille spawn at the request of the Defendant. (P-005)
4. The Defendant then led the Plaintiff to a chest shop located at Revstall029 (2605, 73, 3936), in which an item named “Chest#6WX” was for sale. If a player runs the command /find Chest#6WX, the resulting GUI will display it as a Golden Drill. (P-017, P-022)
5. The Plaintiff then questioned the legitimacy of the offer, leading the Defendant to offer to do a normal exchange without the chest shop, which the Plaintiff was only willing to do if the Defendant mailed it to them first or placed down the drill, both of which the Defendant Refused to do. (P-006, P-008, P-009, P-010)
6. The Plaintiff, after having the Defendant reassure them that the offer was genuine, purchased 1 item named “Chest#6WX” from slapout’s chest shop for the price of 8000 DC$. (P-013, P-023)
7. After the Plaintiff purchased the item, upon examination it was revealed that the item was not a Golden Drill, but rather a renamed chest. (P-015)
8. After the purchase, the Defendant stopped communicating with the Plaintiff, and left the game. (P-014)
9. The next day, on June 11, 2026 at 6:36 PM CDT Plaintiff Klawddddddd received a message from the Defendant offering the same deal: a golden drill for 10000 DC$. The Plaintiff declined. (P-018)
10. Around 10 minutes later, the Plaintiff was contacted by an acquaintance, ilikekoby6576, who talked about how he was offered the same deal by the Defendant, outlining the details given to him. ilikekoby6576 expressed doubts about the deal, and outlined a similar experience to what Plaintiff Cr_2007 experienced, and told the Plaintiff that he declined the deal. (P-019,P-020)
11. After the recounting given by ilikekoby6576, the Plaintiff decided that the seemingly very good deal may be worth the risk, and asked to go see the chest.(P-021)
12. After arriving at the shop, the Plaintiff expressed to his acquaintance that “It is a golden drill,” believing the chestshop to be legitimate. The Plaintiff reasoned that this was true since when entering the name of the item in /find, it appeared as a golden drill. (P-023)
13. The Plaintiff Klawddddddd then purchased 1 item named “Chest6WX” from the Defendant’s chestshop for 10000 DC$ at approximately 6:15 PM CDT. The Plaintiff at first thought that it was in fact a golden drill, and immediately sold it to their acquaintance for the same price (10000 DC$), but ilikekoby6576 quickly came to the realization that it was not actually a drill. The Plaintiff afterwards returned the money to ilikekoby6576. (P-024, P-025)
14. All parties had at least 6 hours of playtime in the last 7 days as of June 13, 2026 at approximately 9:16 PM CDT. (P-026)
14. The Defendant has at the time of filing failed to deliver a golden drill to either Plaintiff, nor has the Defendant returned their money.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Breach of Contract (Redmont Civil Code Act Part VI, §1)
In both incidents, a valid contract was formed between each of the Plaintiffs and the Defendant as defined by Contracts Act §4. In the case of Cr_2007, the contract was actively negotiated and revised through messages before the Plaintiff interacted with a chestshop, clearly displaying an offer in both messages and on the sign in the chestshop, one golden drill. Even if one considers that the sign on the shop itself did not explicitly read golden drill, but rather “Chest#6WX,” the Defendant presented that item in both words and server commands as a golden drill when they set up the chestshop. Although the Plaintiff Klawddddddd did not acknowledge a written offer given by the Defendant, the sign on the chestshop itself constitutes an offer. The action of acceptance was the same for both plaintiffs: the choice to use the chestshop after looking at the offer on the sign. The actions and words of all parties illustrated intent, all parties had the required capacity to enter a contract (at least 6 hours of playtime), and the exchange of something of value was agreed upon and was meant to occur.

The Defendant, however breached the contract by failing to perform their part of the contract, the delivery of a golden drill, after the Plaintiffs performed their part. Either through messages or through text on a sign, the Defendant proposed and agreed to a contract, which they failed to fulfill.

2. Misrepresentation (RCCA Part VI, §2)
The Defendant’s actions clearly fit the definition of Misrepresentation for both plaintiffs in its entirety. As defined by RCCA Part VI §2:

The Defendant made a false statement of fact in both words and text: they claimed to be offering a golden drill, and repeatedly swore that the item was in fact a golden drill. This led both Plaintiffs to enter into a contract, which resulted in both failing to receive a golden drill at significant monetary loss.

3. Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce (RCCA Part VI, §3)
The Defendant intentionally engaged in misleading, deceptive conduct with their careful naming of the item to ensure that their chestshop would appear to be offering a legitimate sale rather than a fraudulent one.

4. Failure to Deliver Goods or Services (RCCA Part VI, §4)
The Defendant’s creation of a chestshop that is presented as selling golden drills, and the subsequent failure on the part of the plaintiff to deliver a golden drill following the exchange of money as a result of the use of a chestshop constitutes a failure to provide promised goods under a valid transaction and/or contract.

5. Punitive Damages (RCCA Part III, §3)
The Defendant engaged in outrageous conduct in multiple ways in these two incidents. For one, the Defendant showed a clear intent to disadvantage the Plaintiffs by misrepresenting what was being offered. The Defendant also displayed a clear indifference to the damage caused by his conduct, as he has engaged in the same conduct repeatedly towards multiple individuals. The Defendant has also displayed deception and dishonesty in his overall conduct, shown by his renaming of a regular chest to make it appear as a golden drill when using server commands, among other actions. In addition, as displayed by the two Plaintiffs in this case, the Defendant engaged in the same or similar conduct repeatedly; as shown by the evidence, the Defendant engaged in this type of behavior on at least three separate occasions.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following relief from the Defendant:
1. $18000 in compensatory damages for the losses incurred as a result of the Defendant’s Breach of Contract ($8000 for Cr_2007, $10000 for Klawddddddd) (RCCA Part III §2
2. If compensatory damages are not granted, then restitution in the form of $18000 for those losses (RCCA Part X §1) OR
3. Specific performance in the form of a golden drill (RCCA Part VI §4) OR
4. Rescission of the $18000 in funds (RCCA Part VI §3).
5. $32000 in punitive damages (RCCA Part III §3).
6. Up to 450 Civil Penalty Units (RCCA Part VI §3&4)
7. Legal fees amounting to 30% of the total damages awarded, payable to Theory, Talion & Partners Inc.
Total Primary Claim: $50000 plus up to 450 Civil Penalty Units ($45000) plus up to $28500 in legal fees.

V. EVIDENCE
Note: All redaction was done in the interests of Privacy in accordance with the definition of personal information in Privacy Act §4(1).

Due to issues with the forums, everything is temporarily attached in a Google doc. The evidence will be uploaded directly to a forum post upon the resolution of this issue. Cr_2007 and Klawddddddd v. slapout Evidence List (Temporary)

VI. WITNESSES
1. Cr_2007
2. Klawddddddd
3. slapout

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 15th day of June 2026.

Motion

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

Your Honor,
The Defendant currently has very little in their balance, however the Plaintiff believes that the Defendant has purposefully used the money gained from this incident to purchase valuable items, as can be seen in the evidence labeled P-027. This evidence illustrates that the Defendant may plan to avoid having money in their balance in order to prevent proper collection of money owed in verdicts, and may even attempt to transfer these assets to another account or user without the court’s knowledge during proceedings. The Plaintiff also worries that if the chestshop at Revstall029 is allowed to continue operation, the Defendant will continue to inflict damages on others. Due to these circumstances, the Plaintiff humbly requests that:

1. The Court orders the assets of the Defendant be frozen until a judgement can be reached in light of the evidence that the Defendant may attempt to abscond and frustrate judgement on this case.
2. The Department of Homeland Security seize the Defendant’s chestshop at Revstall029 for the duration of proceedings.

Your Honor, I would like to request to edit the complaint and motion to be properly labeled as being filed in the Federal Court rather the the district court.

MJL · Jun 16, 2026

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
MOTION TO INTERVENE

_GreyMC
Movant
v.

Multiman155 et. al v. slapout
[2026] FCR 52

I ask my Client, _GreyMC be enjoined to this case and the following complaint be accepted.

I respectfully request that this Court grant this Motion to Intervene and permit my client, _GreyMC, to be enjoined to this case as co-plaintiff.

Respectfully submitted,
-MJL
[they/them]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

_GreyMC
Plaintiff

v.

slapout
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

I. PARTIES
1. _GreyMC (Co-Plaintiff and my client)
2. Multiman155 (Plaintiff)
3. TyTube_Yt (Co-Plaintiff)
4. vaxx (Co-Plaintiff)
5. Cr_2007 (Co-Plaintiff)
6. Klawddddddd (Co-Plaintiff)
7. slapout (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. _GreyMC ("Grey") is resident of Redmont who was willing to purchase a Gold Drill.
2. slapout is a resident of Redmont.
3. On 11 June 2026, Grey and slapout agreed to meet at revstall029 to exchange cash for a gold drill. ("P-M001")
4. slapout stated directly to my client, "I slapout will give _GreyMC my gold drill once he pays me $10000". ("P-M001")
5. Grey then paid $10,000 to slapout. ("P-M001")
6. slapout then handed Grey a chest which had been renamed "Golden Drill". ("P-M001")

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The two obviously met the requirements to form a contract under Section 4 of the Contracts Act.
2. Under Section 1 of Part VI of the RCCA, there was a Breach of Contract as slapout did not uphold his end of the agreement.
3. Under Section 3 of Part VI of the RCCA, Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce occurred as slapout implied (by holding a renamed chest) to have a golden drill which induced my client into forming a contract for its purchase.
3. Under Section 4 of Part VI of the RCCA, Failure to Deliver Goods or Services occurred as slapout did not provide Gray with a golden drill.
4. Under section 4(3) of Part II of the RCCA, civil damages may be sought from on criminal actions. In this case, Defendant's conduct was premeditated and so egregious that it further meets the criminal definition of Fraud in Section 7 of Part VII of the Criminal Code Act and Conspiracy to Commit a Crime found in Section 14 of Part X of the same Act.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $10,000 in compensatory damages to refund my client OR a gold drill as was promised.
2. $20,000 in punitive damages for Fraud and an additional $10,000 for Conspiracy to Commit Fraud.
3. $25,000 in punitive damages for Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce and additional $20,000 for Failure to Deliver Goods or Services
4. As double recovery is not possible for damages which resulted from criminal actions we ask the court to keep in mind that damages under section 2 should be credited against section 3.
5. Legal fees of up to a value of 30% of the total award.

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: 16 June 2026

Sampois · Jun 16, 2026

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Intervene

Your honor, my client one GelmuteJ also fell victim to the same scam made by the defendant we would like to intervene

Sampois · Jun 16, 2026

Sampois said:
Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Intervene

Your honor, my client one GelmuteJ also fell victim to the same scam made by the defendant we would like to intervene

View attachment 86499

(Im filing the above motion to intervene as counsel appointed by Theory, Talion & Partners inc.)

Muggy21 · Jun 16, 2026

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUMMARY CONVICTION OF DEFENDANT FOR CONTEMPT

On June 15th, 2026 at 7:43PM, this Court issued an Emergency Injunction freezing the assets of the Defendant. After the issuance of this injunction, the Court has been made aware that the Defendant openly continues to violate this Court's order.

The Court finds Slapout GUILTY of Contempt of Court x3 for the deliberate and knowing violation of this Court's injunction. He shall be imprisoned for 30 minutes.

If the Court is made aware of any additional attempt to violate its order, the Court shall issue a summary offenses PER HOUR after this order for such violations.

So ordered,
Judge Mug

Muggy21 · Jun 16, 2026

Sampois said:
Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Intervene

Your honor, my client one GelmuteJ also fell victim to the same scam made by the defendant we would like to intervene

View attachment 86499

Granted. Thanks for filing the complaint.

Sampois · Jun 16, 2026

Muggy21 said:
Granted. Thanks for filing the complaint.

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Intervene

Your honor, another one of my clients: summerock also got scammed by the defendant in nearly the exact same manner as the other co-plaintiffs, it seems like the defendant has a bit of a problem. I file this motion to intervene this time as a solo-practitioner.

Muggy21 · Jun 16, 2026

Sampois said:
Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Intervene

Your honor, another one of my clients: summerock also got scammed by the defendant in nearly the exact same manner as the other co-plaintiffs, it seems like the defendant has a bit of a problem. I file this motion to intervene this time as a solo-practitioner.

View attachment 86504

Granted

Sampois · Jun 17, 2026

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Strike

Sampois said:
Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Your honor, i accidentally hit send, apologies for the confusion

Sampois · Jun 17, 2026

Your honor, procedural question: neither the RotFC nor the RoPs provide for what happens to evidence numbering where there are multiple co-parties. In [2026] FCR 32 the court explicitly provided numbering procedure for the case ad hoc.

Sampois · Jun 17, 2026

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion for Emergency Injunction [filed on behalf of co-plaintiffs Cr_2007 and Klawddddddd]

Your honor, the account "slapout" has revived an indefinite deportation for alting despite having no prior history (P-028 (Cr_2007 and Klawddddddd)). This is highly unusual as staff usually don't indefinitely deport a player for there first offense. Counsel requests this court to order staff to disclose any other accounts controlled by the Defendant to this court and to put an immediate asset freeze on those as well.

Muggy21 · Jun 17, 2026

Slapout has been permanently deported, the Court will now proceed on Inquest.

Franciscus · Jun 17, 2026

Motion

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

Your Honor,

The Defendant has been permanently deported for use of alternative accounts (see: Exhibit P-999). We therefore seek to compel the following information:

1. The identity of the all alternative accounts of slapout, to be compelled from the staff team.
2. A list of all financial transactions performed by Slapout over the past 14 days, to be compelled from the Department of Commerce.
3. A list of all financial transactions in the past 14 days from the alternative accounts of Slapout subsequently identified by the staff team, to be compelled from the Department of Commerce.

We (me and my clients) reserve the right to amend our complaint throughout this discovery process, as new evidence emerges.

Pursuant to the Court Rules, Plaintiff submits the following evidence:

Muggy21 · Jun 17, 2026

Franciscus said:
Motion

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

Your Honor,

The Defendant has been permanently deported for use of alternative accounts (see: Exhibit P-999). We therefore seek to compel the following information:

1. The identity of the all alternative accounts of slapout, to be compelled from the staff team.
2. A list of all financial transactions performed by Slapout over the past 14 days, to be compelled from the Department of Commerce.
3. A list of all financial transactions in the past 14 days from the alternative accounts of Slapout subsequently identified by the staff team, to be compelled from the Department of Commerce.

We (me and my clients) reserve the right to amend our complaint throughout this discovery process, as new evidence emerges.

Pursuant to the Court Rules, Plaintiff submits the following evidence:

View attachment 86659

Granted.

Muggy21 · Jun 17, 2026

Staff confirmed yatblue as an alt. of slapout.

Franciscus said:
Motion

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

Your Honor,

The Defendant has been permanently deported for use of alternative accounts (see: Exhibit P-999). We therefore seek to compel the following information:

1. The identity of the all alternative accounts of slapout, to be compelled from the staff team.
2. A list of all financial transactions performed by Slapout over the past 14 days, to be compelled from the Department of Commerce.
3. A list of all financial transactions in the past 14 days from the alternative accounts of Slapout subsequently identified by the staff team, to be compelled from the Department of Commerce.

We (me and my clients) reserve the right to amend our complaint throughout this discovery process, as new evidence emerges.

Pursuant to the Court Rules, Plaintiff submits the following evidence:

View attachment 86659

Staff confirmed yatblue as an alt. of slapout.

Franciscus · Jun 17, 2026

CreeperTD said:
Cr_2007 and Klawddddddd v. slapout Evidence List (Temporary)

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION — IMPROPER EVIDENCE

Your Honor,

Under Rule 4.6, images must be directly uploaded to the forums. Plaintiff objects to the evidence being linked at a remote location, as it violates this rule.

Muggy21 · Jun 17, 2026

Franciscus said:
Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION — IMPROPER EVIDENCE

Your Honor,

Under Rule 4.6, images must be directly uploaded to the forums. Plaintiff objects to the evidence being linked at a remote location, as it violates this rule.

CreeperTD · Jun 18, 2026

Sampois said:
Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion for Emergency Injunction [filed on behalf of co-plaintiffs Cr_2007 and Klawddddddd]

Your honor, the account "slapout" has revived an indefinite deportation for alting despite having no prior history (P-028 (Cr_2007 and Klawddddddd)). This is highly unusual as staff usually don't indefinitely deport a player for there first offense. Counsel requests this court to order staff to disclose any other accounts controlled by the Defendant to this court and to put an immediate asset freeze on those as well.

View attachment 86614

Your Honor,

I respectfully inquire as to whether or not this motion has been granted, or if it will be granted to prevent further damages.

Muggy21 · Jun 18, 2026

CreeperTD said:
Your Honor,

I respectfully inquire as to whether or not this motion has been granted, or if it will be granted to prevent further damages.

Granted, I had informed DHS to expand out to yatblue.

Franciscus · Jun 18, 2026

Your Honor,

I respectfully request a 72-hour extension to discovery. I believe I will be amending my complaint to include additional plaintiffs, additional causes of action, and additional defendants. Because I will be out-of-commission tomorrow, and I am going to have relatively low time today, I ask for the extension.

Sampois · Jun 18, 2026

Franciscus said:
Your Honor,

I respectfully request a 72-hour extension to discovery. I believe I will be amending my complaint to include additional plaintiffs, additional causes of action, and additional defendants. Because I will be out-of-commission tomorrow, and I am going to have relatively low time today, I ask for the extension.

Your honor, with the new court rules can parties be simply amended onto the complaint. It seems odd that a co-plaintiff can be added simply because they are represented by the same counsel without making a motion to intervene. This is not an objection (or at least not yet) I am merely asking for clarification of our current RoPs.

Sampois · Jun 18, 2026

Your honor, could I have a 24 hour extension on all deadlines from the date of their expiration due to IRL reasons?

Muggy21 · Jun 18, 2026

All deadlines tolled thru 6/22/26 @ 9pm EDT

Franciscus · Jun 20, 2026

Muggy21 said:
Staff confirmed yatblue as an alt. of slapout.

Staff confirmed yatblue as an alt. of slapout.

Your Honor,

Pursuant to Rule 4.6, Plaintiff submits the following evidence:

Franciscus · Jun 20, 2026

Your Honor,

Pursuant to Rule 4.6, Plaintiff submits the following evidence:

Reverie Reserve Company Docket; see attched PDF for archive

Reverie Reserve Certificate of Incorporation; see attached PDF for archive

Tax Exempt Firms List; see attached PDF for archive

Motion

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

Your Honor,

It is Plaintiff's beliefs that yatblue, whom staff has identified to be an alternative account of the permanently deported defendant, likely has an account with Reverie Reserve (see: Exhibit P-910). Because few-but-greater-than-zero funds are held in each player's balance (see: Exhibit P-911) and because Yatblue's account balance continues to change (compare: Exhibit P-911 and Exhibit P-914), and because freezing assets in banks may require reaching out to banks directly, Plaintiff suspects that more assets may exist that are yet-to-be-frozen. We also believe that financial transaction logs at financial institutions may uncover the transfer mechanisms for funds that would not be found through in-game logs that the Department of Commerce could provide.

Reverie Reserve, also known as RVR (see: Exhibits P-912 and P-913) is a tax-exempt financial institution (see: Exhibit P-915). We therefore seek to compel from Reverie Reserve the following records:

Any records RVR or its employees, directors, owners or other agents hold regarding any transactions involving Yatblue;
Any records RVR or its employees, directors, owners or other agents hold regarding any transactions involving slapout;
Any records RVR or its employees, directors, owners or other agents hold regarding any financial accounts within RVR (whether they be open or closed accounts) owned or beneficially owned by Yatblue or slapout.

MJL · Jun 20, 2026

Motion

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

Co-Plaintiff _Grey moves that an Emergency Injunction be granted to initiate eviction proceedings against yatblue from the following properties listed in Exhibit P-901:

1. Government Evictions:

revstall041

2. Private Evictions:

Landlord: SomeHumanOnEarth
- c337shop1
Landlord: Vernicia
- vhqs-2
- vhqs-3
- vhqs-6
- vhqs-7
Landlord: Technofied
- sia1_17f
Landlord: TrueDarklander
- rpa-hq1-c
- rpa-hq2-f

Per Part IV of the Property Standards Consolidation Act, Private Eviction Notices are not required where the tenant has been permanently deported [Section 21(3)(a)(ii)]. Section 21 does not require a full refund for evictions for private evictions which resulted from a permanent deport, but it does not disallow a pro-rated partial refund.

Subsection (2) of Section 22 of the same part requires 48 hours for government eviction notices. A full refund is requested for this property.

REASONING

The intention of this emergency injunction is to ensure slapout/yatblue has the necessary liquidity to pay out all debts. There is a strong possibility that he does not have enough funds to cover damages for all parties involved here.

Sampois · Jun 20, 2026

Motion

IM THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Nolle Prosequi [filed on behalf of co-plaintiff summerock]

Your honor, the co-plaintiff and the defendant have reached an out of court settlement. We therefore request this action to be dismissed with prejudice.

Sampois · Jun 20, 2026

Sampois said:
Motion

IM THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Nolle Prosequi [filed on behalf of co-plaintiff summerock]

Your honor, the co-plaintiff and the defendant have reached an out of court settlement. We therefore request this action to be dismissed with prejudice.

Withdrawed for reasons that are protected under privilege.

MJL · Jun 20, 2026

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion for Nolle Prosequi

Your honor, my client has agreed to an out-of-court mostly non-cash settlement with the Defendant. We, therefore, request to withdraw from further proceedings in this case.

quickrip · Jun 21, 2026

CreeperTD said:
As requested by the Honorable Muggy21, here is my complaint that is now joined with this case.

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Cr_2007 and Klawddddddd (Represented by CreeperTD of Theory, Talion, and Partners Inc.)
Plaintiff

v.

slapout
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

I. PARTIES
1. Cr_2007 (Plaintiff)
2. Klawddddddd (Plaintiff)
3. slapout (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. On the day of June 10, 2026, at approximately 5:36 PM CDT, Plaintiff Cr_2007 received a message from the Defendant offering to sell a golden drill for 10000 DC$. (P-001)
2. Plaintiff Cr_2007 and the Defendant negotiated the price of the golden drill for the next 4 minutes, ultimately agreeing to a price of 8000 DC$, and the Defendant said to meet in Willow “if interested,” which the Plaintiff then warped to. (P-002, P-003, P-004)
3. Once meeting in Willow, Plaintiff Cr_2007 further conversed with the defendant, and was convinced to modify their agreement and to instead use a chestshop for the purchase, and then proceeded to teleport to Reveille spawn at the request of the Defendant. (P-005)
4. The Defendant then led the Plaintiff to a chest shop located at Revstall029 (2605, 73, 3936), in which an item named “Chest#6WX” was for sale. If a player runs the command /find Chest#6WX, the resulting GUI will display it as a Golden Drill. (P-017, P-022)
5. The Plaintiff then questioned the legitimacy of the offer, leading the Defendant to offer to do a normal exchange without the chest shop, which the Plaintiff was only willing to do if the Defendant mailed it to them first or placed down the drill, both of which the Defendant Refused to do. (P-006, P-008, P-009, P-010)
6. The Plaintiff, after having the Defendant reassure them that the offer was genuine, purchased 1 item named “Chest#6WX” from slapout’s chest shop for the price of 8000 DC$. (P-013, P-023)
7. After the Plaintiff purchased the item, upon examination it was revealed that the item was not a Golden Drill, but rather a renamed chest. (P-015)
8. After the purchase, the Defendant stopped communicating with the Plaintiff, and left the game. (P-014)
9. The next day, on June 11, 2026 at 6:36 PM CDT Plaintiff Klawddddddd received a message from the Defendant offering the same deal: a golden drill for 10000 DC$. The Plaintiff declined. (P-018)
10. Around 10 minutes later, the Plaintiff was contacted by an acquaintance, ilikekoby6576, who talked about how he was offered the same deal by the Defendant, outlining the details given to him. ilikekoby6576 expressed doubts about the deal, and outlined a similar experience to what Plaintiff Cr_2007 experienced, and told the Plaintiff that he declined the deal. (P-019,P-020)
11. After the recounting given by ilikekoby6576, the Plaintiff decided that the seemingly very good deal may be worth the risk, and asked to go see the chest.(P-021)
12. After arriving at the shop, the Plaintiff expressed to his acquaintance that “It is a golden drill,” believing the chestshop to be legitimate. The Plaintiff reasoned that this was true since when entering the name of the item in /find, it appeared as a golden drill. (P-023)
13. The Plaintiff Klawddddddd then purchased 1 item named “Chest6WX” from the Defendant’s chestshop for 10000 DC$ at approximately 6:15 PM CDT. The Plaintiff at first thought that it was in fact a golden drill, and immediately sold it to their acquaintance for the same price (10000 DC$), but ilikekoby6576 quickly came to the realization that it was not actually a drill. The Plaintiff afterwards returned the money to ilikekoby6576. (P-024, P-025)
14. All parties had at least 6 hours of playtime in the last 7 days as of June 13, 2026 at approximately 9:16 PM CDT. (P-026)
14. The Defendant has at the time of filing failed to deliver a golden drill to either Plaintiff, nor has the Defendant returned their money.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Breach of Contract (Redmont Civil Code Act Part VI, §1)
In both incidents, a valid contract was formed between each of the Plaintiffs and the Defendant as defined by Contracts Act §4. In the case of Cr_2007, the contract was actively negotiated and revised through messages before the Plaintiff interacted with a chestshop, clearly displaying an offer in both messages and on the sign in the chestshop, one golden drill. Even if one considers that the sign on the shop itself did not explicitly read golden drill, but rather “Chest#6WX,” the Defendant presented that item in both words and server commands as a golden drill when they set up the chestshop. Although the Plaintiff Klawddddddd did not acknowledge a written offer given by the Defendant, the sign on the chestshop itself constitutes an offer. The action of acceptance was the same for both plaintiffs: the choice to use the chestshop after looking at the offer on the sign. The actions and words of all parties illustrated intent, all parties had the required capacity to enter a contract (at least 6 hours of playtime), and the exchange of something of value was agreed upon and was meant to occur.

The Defendant, however breached the contract by failing to perform their part of the contract, the delivery of a golden drill, after the Plaintiffs performed their part. Either through messages or through text on a sign, the Defendant proposed and agreed to a contract, which they failed to fulfill.

2. Misrepresentation (RCCA Part VI, §2)
The Defendant’s actions clearly fit the definition of Misrepresentation for both plaintiffs in its entirety. As defined by RCCA Part VI §2:

The Defendant made a false statement of fact in both words and text: they claimed to be offering a golden drill, and repeatedly swore that the item was in fact a golden drill. This led both Plaintiffs to enter into a contract, which resulted in both failing to receive a golden drill at significant monetary loss.

3. Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce (RCCA Part VI, §3)
The Defendant intentionally engaged in misleading, deceptive conduct with their careful naming of the item to ensure that their chestshop would appear to be offering a legitimate sale rather than a fraudulent one.

4. Failure to Deliver Goods or Services (RCCA Part VI, §4)
The Defendant’s creation of a chestshop that is presented as selling golden drills, and the subsequent failure on the part of the plaintiff to deliver a golden drill following the exchange of money as a result of the use of a chestshop constitutes a failure to provide promised goods under a valid transaction and/or contract.

5. Punitive Damages (RCCA Part III, §3)
The Defendant engaged in outrageous conduct in multiple ways in these two incidents. For one, the Defendant showed a clear intent to disadvantage the Plaintiffs by misrepresenting what was being offered. The Defendant also displayed a clear indifference to the damage caused by his conduct, as he has engaged in the same conduct repeatedly towards multiple individuals. The Defendant has also displayed deception and dishonesty in his overall conduct, shown by his renaming of a regular chest to make it appear as a golden drill when using server commands, among other actions. In addition, as displayed by the two Plaintiffs in this case, the Defendant engaged in the same or similar conduct repeatedly; as shown by the evidence, the Defendant engaged in this type of behavior on at least three separate occasions.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following relief from the Defendant:
1. $18000 in compensatory damages for the losses incurred as a result of the Defendant’s Breach of Contract ($8000 for Cr_2007, $10000 for Klawddddddd) (RCCA Part III §2
2. If compensatory damages are not granted, then restitution in the form of $18000 for those losses (RCCA Part X §1) OR
3. Specific performance in the form of a golden drill (RCCA Part VI §4) OR
4. Rescission of the $18000 in funds (RCCA Part VI §3).
5. $32000 in punitive damages (RCCA Part III §3).
6. Up to 450 Civil Penalty Units (RCCA Part VI §3&4)
7. Legal fees amounting to 30% of the total damages awarded, payable to Theory, Talion & Partners Inc.
Total Primary Claim: $50000 plus up to 450 Civil Penalty Units ($45000) plus up to $28500 in legal fees.

V. EVIDENCE
Note: All redaction was done in the interests of Privacy in accordance with the definition of personal information in Privacy Act §4(1).

Due to issues with the forums, everything is temporarily attached in a Google doc. The evidence will be uploaded directly to a forum post upon the resolution of this issue. Cr_2007 and Klawddddddd v. slapout Evidence List (Temporary)

VI. WITNESSES
1. Cr_2007
2. Klawddddddd
3. slapout

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 15th day of June 2026.

Motion

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

Your Honor,
The Defendant currently has very little in their balance, however the Plaintiff believes that the Defendant has purposefully used the money gained from this incident to purchase valuable items, as can be seen in the evidence labeled P-027. This evidence illustrates that the Defendant may plan to avoid having money in their balance in order to prevent proper collection of money owed in verdicts, and may even attempt to transfer these assets to another account or user without the court’s knowledge during proceedings. The Plaintiff also worries that if the chestshop at Revstall029 is allowed to continue operation, the Defendant will continue to inflict damages on others. Due to these circumstances, the Plaintiff humbly requests that:

1. The Court orders the assets of the Defendant be frozen until a judgement can be reached in light of the evidence that the Defendant may attempt to abscond and frustrate judgement on this case.
2. The Department of Homeland Security seize the Defendant’s chestshop at Revstall029 for the duration of proceedings.

i want to say i gave klawwwwwwd rh046 as compensation, the value is well over 45k. i had it evaluated by two realty guys.

Cat Oakridge · Jun 21, 2026

Your Honor, let the record reflect that I, UrbanDispatchMC, shall now represent the Defense in this case.

CreeperTD · Jun 21, 2026

quickrip said:
i want to say i gave klawwwwwwd rh046 as compensation, the value is well over 45k. i had it evaluated by two realty guys.

Objection

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

Your Honor,

The Defendant has spoken out of turn without having first filed an answer to complaint. This information has not been presented in any recognized response or brief, and the Defendant has done so without presenting any supporting evidence.

Cat Oakridge · Jun 21, 2026

Your honor, I would quickly like to ask for the opposing counsel to present a list of the plaintiffs currently involved in the case, after some negotiations and settlements.

I would also hereby like to ask for 24 hours extra time to respond due to my recent handover of the case and to allow time for research.

Muggy21 · Jun 21, 2026

MJL said:
Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion for Nolle Prosequi

Your honor, my client has agreed to an out-of-court mostly non-cash settlement with the Defendant. We, therefore, request to withdraw from further proceedings in this case.

DENIED. You've just admitted to violating this Court's emergency injunction. (Lawsuit: Pending - Multiman155 et. al v. slapout [2026] FCR 52)

Muggy21 · Jun 21, 2026

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Writ of Mandamus - Multiman155 et. al v. slapout [2026] FCR 52

The Department of Construction and Transport is hereby ordered to seize and safeguard plot:rh046 from Co-Plaintiff klawwwwwwd. Co-Plaintiff, on inadvertent admission from Defendant slapout, has engaged in a transaction that has violated an Emergency Injunction issued by this Court.

THEREFORE, the DCT shall seize rh046 on behalf of the Court in pursuance of this Order and previous injunctions issued.

So ordered,
Judge Mug

Muggy21 · Jun 21, 2026

Cat Oakridge said:
Your Honor, let the record reflect that I, UrbanDispatchMC, shall now represent the Defense in this case.

View attachment 87117

Counsel, your screenshot says "yatblue" while the named Defendant is slapout. I'm assuming you're here only to represent yatblue's interests as slapout is not permitted any personal defense.

Known Plaintiffs:

Multiman155 (Counsel)
-> Multiman155, Tytube_yt, vaxx

TT&Partners
-> Cr_2007, Klawddddddd

MJL
-> _GreyMC

Sampois
-> No plaintiffs, he's failed to file a Complaint (unless he's working with TT&P? - at which point no new names appear on that Complaint)

-> summerrock does not appear on any Complaint.

MJL · Jun 21, 2026

Muggy21 said:
DENIED. You've just admitted to violating this Court's emergency injunction. (Lawsuit: Pending - Multiman155 et. al v. slapout [2026] FCR 52)

Muggy21 said:
Counsel, your screenshot says "yatblue" while the named Defendant is slapout. I'm assuming you're here only to represent yatblue's interests as slapout is not permitted any personal defense.

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Reconsider

Your honor, I am a bit confused. Are we or are we not treating Yatblue as the same person as Slapout?

If we are treating them as two separate legal personas, then my client's settlement was with yatblue and not Slapout. We, therefore, have not violated any court order.

If they are the same person for our purposes, then why was yatblue able to liquidate or-sp-03 ("P-M002")? The DHS should have already secured and frozen the defendant's assets. However, I knew that to not be the case given his current employment with them. Regardless, the total value of the assets my client collected was not more than $5,000. There was some artwork I personally valued at a premium (it would be unable to reach that valuation on an open market), but without the artwork there could not have been more than $1.5k in assets. I can provide a near-full accounting of what was recovered, but it was mostly the Defendant's junk.

Finally, I must note that I believe your emergency injunction had the unintended effect of reversing a prior district court ruling in TweedyApple255 v. quickrip [2026] DCR 74. It did not do so explicitly, however.

Muggy21 · Jun 21, 2026

MJL said:
Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Reconsider

Your honor, I am a bit confused. Are we or are we not treating Yatblue as the same person as Slapout?

If we are treating them as two separate legal personas, then my client's settlement was with yatblue and not Slapout. We, therefore, have not violated any court order.

If they are the same person for our purposes, then why was yatblue able to liquidate or-sp-03 ("P-M002")? The DHS should have already secured and frozen the defendant's assets. However, I knew that to not be the case given his current employment with them. Regardless, the total value of the assets my client collected was not more than $5,000. There was some artwork I personally valued at a premium (it would be unable to reach that valuation on an open market), but without the artwork there could not have been more than $1.5k in assets. I can provide a near-full accounting of what was recovered, but it was mostly the Defendant's junk.

Finally, I must note that I believe your emergency injunction had the unintended effect of reversing a prior district court ruling in TweedyApple255 v. quickrip [2026] DCR 74. It did not do so explicitly, however.

View attachment 87198

I'm discussing with my colleagues, I've also engaged Staff on the alter-ego question.

Muggy21 · Jun 21, 2026

quickrip = slapout
slapout = slapout
yatblue = slapout and yatblue.

This is what I've been told as Staff.

@Cat Oakridge You represent yatblue and yatblue ONLY. I issued an EI against all of that player's assets in line with that player being an alter-ego of slapout.

I'm going to consider all filings AGAIN and proceed with pending matters.

CreeperTD · Jun 21, 2026

Muggy21 said:
Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Writ of Mandamus - Multiman155 et. al v. slapout [2026] FCR 52

The Department of Construction and Transport is hereby ordered to seize and safeguard plot:rh046 from Co-Plaintiff klawwwwwwd. Co-Plaintiff, on inadvertent admission from Defendant slapout, has engaged in a transaction that has violated an Emergency Injunction issued by this Court.

THEREFORE, the DCT shall seize rh046 on behalf of the Court in pursuance of this Order and previous injunctions issued.

So ordered,
Judge Mug

Motion

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

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the court withdraw the above Court Order, as the Emergency Injunction applied to the assets of the initial defendant, slapout, had not yet been applied to the assets of yatblue at the time of purchase. In support thereof, the Plaintiff presents the following:

Below is an Approximate timeline of the events of the negotiation for and subsequent purchasing of the plot rh046.
(All times below are listed in CDT, or UTC-5, and took place on June 17th, 2026)
4:12 PM - Yatblue contacted Klawddddddd (Plaintiff) to ask if he’d like to buy rh046 and provided some details about the property.
4:13 PM - Plaintiff agreed to meet up at said property.
4:14-4:15 PM - Plaintiff asked for the name of the place again so I could go to it and check
4:15-4:17 PM - Plaintiff met with yatblue and began talking about the property while walking around and checking it.
4:18 PM - Plaintiff confirmed that he was going to buy it.
4:18-4:24 PM - Plaintiff discussed some more details about the property.
4:24 PM - Plaintiff paid yatblue 20,000 DC dollars and yatblue transferred the property to Plaintiff.
4:24-4:26 PM - Plaintiff discussed about certain commands used for properties such as /vault
4:26 PM - Plaintiff and yatblue parted ways.
7:51 PM - The presiding officer in the case, the Honorable Muggy21, stated in Post #24 in this case thread that “Staff confirmed yatblue as an alt. of slapout,” thereby extending the Emergency Injunction of the assets of the initial Defendant, slapout, to the assets of yatblue.

The Plaintiff also wishes to present the following exhibits to support the above timeline:

P-028 - Excerpt 1 of chatlogs from Klawddddddd

P-029 - Excerpt 2 of chatlogs from Klawddddddd

P-030 - Excerpt 3 of chatlogs from Klawddddddd

P-031 - Excerpt 4 of chatlogs from Klawddddddd

quickrip · Jun 22, 2026

all of you corrupt higher ups will get whats coming around to you allegedly. pulling strings that only you can to fit your agendas allegedly.

Franciscus · Jun 22, 2026

Your Honor:

Plaintiff submits the following exhibit.

Due to the long-deportation of yatblue, Plaintiff requests a further 72-hour extension to amend filings.

CreeperTD · Jun 22, 2026

Motion

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

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff requests that the Court move to summary judgment now that yatblue has been deported. There is now nothing being disputed about the facts of the case, all that remains is to determine the verdict. The Plaintiff does not wish for more parties to be added to this case, as that would only cause more delays for an already quite delayed case.

Franciscus · Jun 22, 2026

quickrip said:
all of you corrupt higher ups will get whats coming around to you allegedly. pulling strings that only you can to fit your agendas allegedly.

Objection

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

Your Honor,

This filing by Defendant was neither permissible nor cognizable under any court rule. It violates the principle of decorum required under Rule 1.2.4.1, which requires “proper behavior towards both the opposing party and the presiding judge”.

Because the filing is not permissible and breaches court rules, we pray that the Court strike the filing and hold the Defendant in contempt of court, in line with Rule 1.4.2.

Sampois · Jun 22, 2026

Muggy21 said:
DENIED. You've just admitted to violating this Court's emergency injunction. (Lawsuit: Pending - Multiman155 et. al v. slapout [2026] FCR 52)

Correct, I accidentally violated this court's EI that is why i promptly withdrew my motion and am requesting a sidebar.

Muggy21 · Jun 22, 2026

Sampois said:
Correct, I accidentally violated this court's EI that is why i promptly withdrew my motion and am requesting a sidebar.

Where is the complaint for your plaintiffs....

Sampois · Jun 22, 2026

Sampois said:
Correct, I accidentally violated this court's EI that is why i promptly withdrew my motion and am requesting a sidebar.

One, apologies I read the wrong reply, however I would still like a sidebar in order to recover lost assets. (I also accidentally did not send my initial request for a sidebar, apologies.)

Muggy21 said:
Where is the complaint for your plaintiffs....

Two, all deadlines (including the deadlines for me to submit my complaint) were tolled until 9 PM today by your honor (see Lawsuit: Pending - Multiman155 et. al v. slapout [2026] FCR 52) and I intend on filing within deadline. Thank you, your honor.

MJL · Jun 22, 2026

Muggy21 said:
quickrip = slapout
slapout = slapout
yatblue = slapout and yatblue.

This is what I've been told as Staff.

@Cat Oakridge You represent yatblue and yatblue ONLY. I issued an EI against all of that player's assets in line with that player being an alter-ego of slapout.

I'm going to consider all filings AGAIN and proceed with pending matters.

Your honor, I must concur with @Sampois in asking for a sidebar.

I thought I understood you here, but now I am completely lost. I do not even know who is being sued anymore.

Muggy21 · Jun 22, 2026

Sidebar made!

Franciscus · Jun 24, 2026

Your Honor:

Noting Your Honor’s certified question to the SCR, Plaintiff requests 48 hours until after the questions is given final answer to amend complaint. This is because the answer to the questions may impact theories of liability as it pertains to the main account, as well as potential claims for relief that may need to be separately levied if the two are not considered the same legal person.

Muggy21 · Jun 24, 2026

Franciscus said:
Your Honor:

Noting Your Honor’s certified question to the SCR, Plaintiff requests 48 hours until after the questions is given final answer to amend complaint. This is because the answer to the questions may impact theories of liability as it pertains to the main account, as well as potential claims for relief that may need to be separately levied if the two are not considered the same legal person.

Granted.

Muggy21 · Jul 6, 2026

The Supreme Court has graced us with a response. Parties have 72 Hours to make adjustments to any filing made previously in light of this ruling.

Smallfries · Jul 6, 2026

Muggy21 said:
The Supreme Court has graced us with a response. Parties have 72 Hours to make adjustments to any filing made previously in light of this ruling.

For interested parties. I neglected to update here, my apologies.

Franciscus · Jul 9, 2026

Your Honor:

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
NOTICE OF AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT

Your Honor,

Pursuant to your instructions above, and Rule 3.3, lead Plaintiff amends the lead complaint.

This amendment includes the inclusion of the following new parties:

ElegantAlly (co-Plaintiff, also known as “Ally La Banca”)
SixAnemone9780 (co-Plaintiff, also known by alias kachuaa)
396Vette (co-Plaintiff)

The amendment amends the defendant to their canonical name (that of the main account):

Yatblue (also known under alias Slapout) (Defendant)

This amendment includes the following additional facts:

Co-Plaintiff 396Vette was seeking to purchase a golden drill.
Defendant messaged 396Vette and represented that he was selling a golden drill.
Relying on Defendant’s representation, 396Vette expressed interest in purchasing the golden drill.
396Vette and Defendant met at 396Vette’s shop to complete the transaction.
Defendant represented that he would provide 396Vette with the golden drill after 396Vette paid him 10,000 dollars.
396Vette agreed to the transaction and paid Defendant 10,000 dollars.
After receiving the 10,000 dollars, Defendant did not provide 396Vette with a golden drill.
Instead, Defendant delivered or threw to 396Vette a chest labeled “Golden Drill.”
The chest Defendant delivered was not a golden drill.
After delivering the renamed chest, Defendant teleported away.
Defendant then ignored 396Vette’s follow-up messages.
396Vette suffered damages of 10,000 dollars.
On or about June 11, 2026, at approximately 11:00 AM IST, Defendant messaged kachuaa in-game.
Defendant represented that he could sell kachuaa a golden drill for 11,000 dollars.
kachuaa had previously seen Defendant on the server and trusted him.
Relying on Defendant’s representation, kachuaa told Defendant to come to the hospital so that kachuaa could pay Defendant and receive the drill.
Defendant came to the hospital.
Defendant sent kachuaa a contract, as shown in kachuaa’s screenshots.
kachuaa paid Defendant 11,000 dollars.
After receiving the 11,000 dollars, Defendant did not provide kachuaa with a golden drill.
Instead, Defendant gave kachuaa a chest called “golden drill.”
The chest Defendant delivered was not a golden drill.
The chest did not contain a golden drill.
After receiving payment and delivering the renamed chest, Defendant placed kachuaa on his ignore list.
Because Defendant placed kachuaa on ignore, kachuaa could not message Defendant afterward.
kachuaa suffered damages of 11,000 dollars.
Plaintiff Ally La Banca encountered Defendant’s chestshop near the post office.
The chestshop was located in a high-traffic area where players commonly pass while accessing the post office.
At the time of Ally’s purchase, the server was experiencing performance issues.
The server had recently been DDoSed, and chunks were not loading properly.
Ally was walking to the post office to pick up a package from robotalan.
Ally did not intend to shop at Defendant’s chestshop.
Due to lag and chunk-loading issues, Ally accidentally clicked Defendant’s chestshop.
Defendant’s chestshop was identified as chest#6wx.
Defendant’s chestshop represented or appeared to represent that it was selling a golden drill.
As a result of the chestshop transaction, Ally paid or was charged 10,000 dollars.
Ally did not receive a golden drill.
Instead, Ally received a chest renamed “golden drill.”
The item Ally received was not a golden drill.
The item Ally received did not contain a golden drill.
Ally suffered damages of 10,000 dollars.
Ally opened a staff ticket soon after the transaction.
In that ticket, staff member Sypder_Crypt stated or indicated that Ally was “another victim.”
Staff did not refund Ally or otherwise reverse the transaction.
Ally contacted Defendant seeking a refund.
Ally gave Defendant 48 hours to refund the 10,000 dollars before pursuing legal action.
Defendant did not reimburse Ally within that 48-hour period.
Defendant was unjustly enriched because Ally paid 10,000 dollars for what appeared to be a golden drill and received only a renamed chest.
Defendant’s chestshop was misleading because it caused or permitted players to believe they were purchasing a golden drill when the actual item was merely a renamed chest.
Defendant used an alternative account when causing harm to Plaintiff and co-Plaintiffs.

Additional witnesses will also be included, and evidence will be added in the form of exhibits whose titles begin with “P-Q”

The amendment includes the following additional claims for relief for various parties, which will be laid out in the full amendment in the complaint directly:

Breach of Contract (RCCA, Part VI, Section 1).
Misrepresentation (RCCA, Part VI, Section 2)
Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce (RCCA, Part VI, Section 3)
Failure to Deliver Goods or Services (RCCA, Part VI, Section 4)
Unjust Enrichment (RCCA, Part X, Section 1)
Conversion (RCCA, Part VII, Section 7)

The amendment includes additional prayers for relief in line with the claims and additional parties, as well as further explanations.

The full amendment will be posted directly to the complaint subsequent to the posting of this message explaining the amendments, in line with Rule 3.3.

yatblue · Jul 10, 2026

~~IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT~~

CIVIL DIVISION

Multiman155 et. al (Plaintiffs)

v.

Yatblue (Defendant)

Case No: FCR 52

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND LITIGATION BRIEF

~~Now comes the Defendant, Yatblue, and respectfully submits this formal Answer and Litigation Brief to the Amended Complaint.~~

I. ANSWER TO THE STATEMENT OF FACTS

Admission of Entity Identity: For the purposes of this specific proceeding and to ensure a streamlined resolution on the merits, the Defendant admits that Yatblue, Slapout, and quickrip are treated as the same legal entity.
Denial of Deception: The Defendant denies that any "deception" occurred. The items for sale were placed in a public chest shop container clearly and transparently labeled "Chest#6WX".
Assertion of Prior Restitution: The Defendant asserts that out-of-court restitution has already been fully provided to Co-Plaintiff Klawddddddd via the legal transfer of plot rh046, which holds a market value of approximately $45,000.

II. DEFENSES TO THE CLAIMS

A. Statutory Failure to Exercise Reasonable Care (Defense to RCCA Part VI, Section 3)

The Plaintiffs seek damages under the Redmont Commercial Code/Consumer Act (RCCA) Part VI, Section 3 for Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce. This claim fails as a matter of law against all grouped plaintiffs due to an explicit statutory exemption.

Under RCCA Part VI, Section 3(c), a statutory violation for misleading conduct shall not occur where:

~~"(c) the plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care in relying on the conduct."~~

The transactions in question were executed via standard chest shop mechanics. The physical sign on the container openly and accurately displayed the structural, mechanical item identifier as a "Chest" or "Chest#6WX". Every Plaintiff in this case had the immediate opportunity to read the chest shop sign prior to clicking.

The Plaintiffs—all established citizens within the Redmont economy—elected to execute high-value financial transactions ranging from $8,000 to $11,000 based entirely on an algorithmic command shortcut interface via the /find command GUI. Relying blindly on a sub-text name within a command menu interface rather than performing the baseline due diligence of reading the literal text on the commercial sign constitutes a gross failure of reasonable care in a high-value transaction. Because their reliance lacks the requisite reasonable care mandated by RCCA Part VI, Section 3(c), the statutory exemption applies, and the Defendant faces no liability for Misleading Conduct.

B. Absence of a Valid Contract and Fulfillment of Terms (Defense to Breach of Contract)

Under Section 4(2)(d) of the Contracts Act, a valid contract strictly requires Intent to create legal obligations. Under RCCA Part VI, Section 1(b), a breach of contract cannot occur if the underlying contract is void or non-existent.

Dismissal of Plaintiff ElegantAlly (Ally La Banca): Plaintiff ElegantAlly explicitly admits in the factual record that she "did not intend to shop" and clicked the chest shop container entirely "accidentally" due to server-side latency or DDoS chunk errors. Without a mutual meeting of the minds or an objective intent to purchase, no valid contract was ever formed. Furthermore, because her action was a physical accident, she lacks the element of inducement required under RCCA Part VI, Section 2(b).
Fulfillment of Terms for Remaining Plaintiffs: For all other Plaintiffs, a valid contract was formed and fully executed according to its literal, objective terms. The "Offer" was the text explicitly printed on the sign ("Chest#6WX"), the "Acceptance" was the voluntary click, and the "Consideration" delivered by the Defendant was a renamed chest. The Defendant fulfilled the contract exactly as it was written on the sign. The law does not protect a buyer from a contract whose literal terms they failed to read.

C. Defense to Unjust Enrichment and Conversion

No Wrongful Withholding: The claim for Conversion under RCCA Part VII, Section 7 requires a "wrongful" withholding of property. The funds in question were transferred via a voluntary, system-sanctioned chest shop transaction for a clearly labeled item. Voluntarily authorized commercial payments cannot constitute conversion.
Adequacy of Consideration: The claim for Unjust Enrichment fails because the Defendant provided a physical good in exchange for the money. Under Section 4(2)(c) of the Contracts Act, the "adequacy" of consideration is not a requirement for a contract to be valid and binding. The court will not micro-manage the subjective value of a transaction after the fact.
Mootness via Restitution: Furthermore, the voluntary transfer of plot rh046 to Co-Plaintiff Klawddddddd constitutes a massive over-payment of restitution relative to his alleged individual losses, completely nullifying any claim of "unjust enrichment" at the expense of that specific Plaintiff.

III. ARGUMENT AGAINST PUNITIVE AND TREBLE DAMAGES

No Outrageous Conduct: Punitive damages strictly require a showing of malicious or "outrageous" conduct. Selling a container that is transparently labeled as a "Chest" on a commercial sign—regardless of its custom text renaming—is an automated game mechanic and a standard commercial interaction that does not reach the high threshold of outrageousness.
Inapplicability of Treble Damages: Treble damages for Conversion are entirely inapplicable. The capital was obtained through a voluntary commercial exchange initiated by the Plaintiffs' own interactions with a chest shop, not through "stealing," "extortion," or physical deprivation of property.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

~~Wherefore, the Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court:~~

Dismiss all claims of Misleading Conduct due to the Plaintiffs' absolute failure to exercise reasonable care under RCCA Part VI, Section 3(c);
Dismiss all claims of Breach of Contract where objective intent was absent (ElegantAlly) or where the literal terms of the chest shop sign were fully met;
Offset any potential damages levied by the court by the $45,000 value of plot rh046 already transferred to the Plaintiffs as prior restitution; and
Deny all requests for Punitive, Treble, and Nominal damages.

DATED: July 10, 2026

Respectfully submitted,

~~/s/ Yatblue~~

Muggy21 · Jul 10, 2026

yatblue said:
~~IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT~~

CIVIL DIVISION

Multiman155 et. al (Plaintiffs)

v.

Yatblue (Defendant)

Case No: FCR 52

~~DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND LITIGATION BRIEF~~
~~Now comes the Defendant, Yatblue, and respectfully submits this formal Answer and Litigation Brief to the Amended Complaint.~~

~~I. ANSWER TO THE STATEMENT OF FACTS~~

Admission of Entity Identity: For the purposes of this specific proceeding and to ensure a streamlined resolution on the merits, the Defendant admits that Yatblue, Slapout, and quickrip are treated as the same legal entity.

Denial of Deception: The Defendant denies that any "deception" occurred. The items for sale were placed in a public chest shop container clearly and transparently labeled "Chest#6WX".

Assertion of Prior Restitution: The Defendant asserts that out-of-court restitution has already been fully provided to Co-Plaintiff Klawddddddd via the legal transfer of plot rh046, which holds a market value of approximately $45,000.

~~II. DEFENSES TO THE CLAIMS~~
~~A. Statutory Failure to Exercise Reasonable Care (Defense to RCCA Part VI, Section 3)~~
The Plaintiffs seek damages under the Redmont Commercial Code/Consumer Act (RCCA) Part VI, Section 3 for Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce. This claim fails as a matter of law against all grouped plaintiffs due to an explicit statutory exemption.

Under RCCA Part VI, Section 3(c), a statutory violation for misleading conduct shall not occur where:

The transactions in question were executed via standard chest shop mechanics. The physical sign on the container openly and accurately displayed the structural, mechanical item identifier as a "Chest" or "Chest#6WX". Every Plaintiff in this case had the immediate opportunity to read the chest shop sign prior to clicking.

The Plaintiffs—all established citizens within the Redmont economy—elected to execute high-value financial transactions ranging from $8,000 to $11,000 based entirely on an algorithmic command shortcut interface via the /find command GUI. Relying blindly on a sub-text name within a command menu interface rather than performing the baseline due diligence of reading the literal text on the commercial sign constitutes a gross failure of reasonable care in a high-value transaction. Because their reliance lacks the requisite reasonable care mandated by RCCA Part VI, Section 3(c), the statutory exemption applies, and the Defendant faces no liability for Misleading Conduct.

~~B. Absence of a Valid Contract and Fulfillment of Terms (Defense to Breach of Contract)~~
Under Section 4(2)(d) of the Contracts Act, a valid contract strictly requires Intent to create legal obligations. Under RCCA Part VI, Section 1(b), a breach of contract cannot occur if the underlying contract is void or non-existent.

Dismissal of Plaintiff ElegantAlly (Ally La Banca): Plaintiff ElegantAlly explicitly admits in the factual record that she "did not intend to shop" and clicked the chest shop container entirely "accidentally" due to server-side latency or DDoS chunk errors. Without a mutual meeting of the minds or an objective intent to purchase, no valid contract was ever formed. Furthermore, because her action was a physical accident, she lacks the element of inducement required under RCCA Part VI, Section 2(b).

Fulfillment of Terms for Remaining Plaintiffs: For all other Plaintiffs, a valid contract was formed and fully executed according to its literal, objective terms. The "Offer" was the text explicitly printed on the sign ("Chest#6WX"), the "Acceptance" was the voluntary click, and the "Consideration" delivered by the Defendant was a renamed chest. The Defendant fulfilled the contract exactly as it was written on the sign. The law does not protect a buyer from a contract whose literal terms they failed to read.

~~C. Defense to Unjust Enrichment and Conversion~~

No Wrongful Withholding: The claim for Conversion under RCCA Part VII, Section 7 requires a "wrongful" withholding of property. The funds in question were transferred via a voluntary, system-sanctioned chest shop transaction for a clearly labeled item. Voluntarily authorized commercial payments cannot constitute conversion.

Adequacy of Consideration: The claim for Unjust Enrichment fails because the Defendant provided a physical good in exchange for the money. Under Section 4(2)(c) of the Contracts Act, the "adequacy" of consideration is not a requirement for a contract to be valid and binding. The court will not micro-manage the subjective value of a transaction after the fact.

Mootness via Restitution: Furthermore, the voluntary transfer of plot rh046 to Co-Plaintiff Klawddddddd constitutes a massive over-payment of restitution relative to his alleged individual losses, completely nullifying any claim of "unjust enrichment" at the expense of that specific Plaintiff.

~~III. ARGUMENT AGAINST PUNITIVE AND TREBLE DAMAGES~~

No Outrageous Conduct: Punitive damages strictly require a showing of malicious or "outrageous" conduct. Selling a container that is transparently labeled as a "Chest" on a commercial sign—regardless of its custom text renaming—is an automated game mechanic and a standard commercial interaction that does not reach the high threshold of outrageousness.

Inapplicability of Treble Damages: Treble damages for Conversion are entirely inapplicable. The capital was obtained through a voluntary commercial exchange initiated by the Plaintiffs' own interactions with a chest shop, not through "stealing," "extortion," or physical deprivation of property.

~~IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF~~
~~Wherefore, the Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court:~~

Dismiss all claims of Misleading Conduct due to the Plaintiffs' absolute failure to exercise reasonable care under RCCA Part VI, Section 3(c);

Dismiss all claims of Breach of Contract where objective intent was absent (ElegantAlly) or where the literal terms of the chest shop sign were fully met;

Offset any potential damages levied by the court by the $45,000 value of plot rh046 already transferred to the Plaintiffs as prior restitution; and

Deny all requests for Punitive, Treble, and Nominal damages.

DATED: July 10, 2026

Respectfully submitted,

~~/s/ Yatblue~~

This filing is administratively ignored, the author is long deported.

CreeperTD · Jul 11, 2026

CreeperTD said:
Motion

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

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff requests that the Court move to summary judgment now that yatblue has been deported. There is now nothing being disputed about the facts of the case, all that remains is to determine the verdict. The Plaintiff does not wish for more parties to be added to this case, as that would only cause more delays for an already quite delayed case.

Your honor,

I would like to respectfully remind you of this pending motion, and I humbly request that it may be ruled on if possible. I would also like to inquire as to whether or not discovery has been formally opened.

Muggy21 · Jul 11, 2026

CreeperTD said:
Your honor,

I would like to respectfully remind you of this pending motion, and I humbly request that it may be ruled on if possible. I would also like to inquire as to whether or not discovery has been formally opened.

So we're in Inquest, so the summary judgement motion is moot.

Franciscus · Thursday at 12:27 AM

Motion

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

Your Honor,

Under Rule 3.6.2(b), a "Plaintiff may apply by motion for the issuance of subpoenas, writs, or summonses as the Court deems judicially prudent" (emphasis mine) to obtain witness testimony within an inquest. In this case, the joint Plaintiffs of the complaint in the first post seek to summon witnesses to testify to various events, provide context to screenshots, and help fill in gaps that might remain based upon the documentary evidence.

The complaint contains the following witness list:

Multiman155
TyTube_Yt
vaxx
slapout
Budgiebud (Mayor of Aventura)
Scassany (Former Secretary of the Department of Education)
Staff Team
ElegantAlly
396Vette
Aelia_Singl3heart
SixAnemone9870
Eenza

For this reason, Plaintiffs motion for the issuance of subpoenas, writs and/or summonses in order to secure the testimony of the above individuals under oath in the context of this inquest proceeding.

Muggy21 · Thursday at 10:49 AM

Franciscus said:
Motion

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

Your Honor,

Under Rule 3.6.2(b), a "Plaintiff may apply by motion for the issuance of subpoenas, writs, or summonses as the Court deems judicially prudent" (emphasis mine) to obtain witness testimony within an inquest. In this case, the joint Plaintiffs of the complaint in the first post seek to summon witnesses to testify to various events, provide context to screenshots, and help fill in gaps that might remain based upon the documentary evidence.

The complaint contains the following witness list:

Multiman155

TyTube_Yt

vaxx

slapout

Budgiebud (Mayor of Aventura)

Scassany (Former Secretary of the Department of Education)

Staff Team

ElegantAlly

396Vette

Aelia_Singl3heart

SixAnemone9870

Eenza

For this reason, Plaintiffs motion for the issuance of subpoenas, writs and/or summonses in order to secure the testimony of the above individuals under oath in the context of this inquest proceeding.

What are we going to learn that can't be read in from the Complaint (and associated evidence) from 11 witnesses, including the Staff Team?

Franciscus · Thursday at 4:37 PM

Muggy21 said:
What are we going to learn that can't be read in from the Complaint (and associated evidence) from 11 witnesses, including the Staff Team?

Your Honor,

I recognize the Court has announced all deadlines are tolled. And I will keep the reply brief.

In general, I believe that these witnesses can provide either narrative evidence as to their encounters with the defendant, expert testimony regarding the nature of drills, verification of out-of-court statements. or other factual testimony as a third-party witness. It will also allow for us to describe the outrageousness required for punitive damages in more depth by bringing the experiences of the victims to the courtroom through questioning. This, we hope, will provide further support the claims in the Complaint, and would be permitted in an ordinary trial, so we request the witnesses here.

Lawsuit: Pending Multiman155 et. al v. slapout [2026] FCR 52

President

Case Filing

COMPLAINT​

I. PARTIES​

II. FACTS​

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

III.A. Breach of Contract​

III.A.1. Defendant committed breach of contract against Plaintiff Multiman155​

III.A.2. Defendant committed breach of contract against Co-Plaintiff TyTube_Yt​

III.A.3. Defendant committed breach of contract against Co-Plaintiff vaxx​

III.A.4. Defendant Committed Breach of Contract against new co-Plaintiffs 396Vette and Kachuaa​

III.B. Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce​

III.B.1. Defendant committed Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce against Plaintiff and both original Co-Plaintiffs​

III.B.2. Defendant committed Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce against Co-Plaintiff TyTube_Yt​

III.B.3. Defendant committed Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce against Co-Plaintiff Vaxx​

III.B.4 Defendant committed Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce against the new parties (ElegantAlly, 396Vette, and kachuaa)​

III.C. Misrepresentation​

III.D. Failure to Deliver Goods or Services​

III.E. Conversion​

III.F. Unjust Enrichment​

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

V. Evidence​

VI. Witness List​

Attachments

President

Citizen

Citizen

Writ of Summons

Citizen

Case Filing

Motion

Citizen

Motion

Citizen

Citizen

Citizen

Citizen

Citizen

Citizen

Case Filing

Motion

Citizen

Motion

Case Filing

Citizen

Motion

Citizen

Motion

Citizen

Court Order

Citizen

Motion

Citizen

Motion

Citizen

Motion

Citizen

Motion

Motion

Citizen

Citizen

Motion

Citizen

President

Motion

Citizen

Motion

Citizen

Motion

President

Objection

Citizen

Objection

Attachments

Citizen

Motion

Citizen

President

Citizen

COMPLAINT

I. PARTIES

II. FACTS

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

III.A. Breach of Contract

III.A.1. Defendant committed breach of contract against Plaintiff Multiman155

III.A.2. Defendant committed breach of contract against Co-Plaintiff TyTube_Yt

III.A.3. Defendant committed breach of contract against Co-Plaintiff vaxx

III.A.4. Defendant Committed Breach of Contract against new co-Plaintiffs 396Vette and Kachuaa

III.B. Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce

III.B.1. Defendant committed Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce against Plaintiff and both original Co-Plaintiffs

III.B.2. Defendant committed Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce against Co-Plaintiff TyTube_Yt

III.B.3. Defendant committed Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce against Co-Plaintiff Vaxx

III.B.4 Defendant committed Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce against the new parties (ElegantAlly, 396Vette, and kachuaa)

III.C. Misrepresentation

III.D. Failure to Deliver Goods or Services

III.E. Conversion

III.F. Unjust Enrichment

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

V. Evidence

VI. Witness List