Lawsuit: Adjourned Pikaonly v. dearev [2026] DCR 153

X

xVoltrix

Citizen
Public Defender
BAR Councillor
Supporter
Health Department
xVoltrix
xVoltrix
Public Defender
Joined
Jul 20, 2026
Messages
38

Case Filing


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Pikaonly
Plaintiff

v.

dearev
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

My friend "dearev" got deported permanently a few weeks ago. I was supposed to buy some goods from him, but he got deported mid-way through our business deal.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES
1. Pikaonly, represented by Blackstone Law Group
2. dearev

II. FACTS
1. The Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant to buy 5 "Christmas Lootboxes" for $15,000 DCC each, totalling $75,000 DCC [Exhibit P-001]
2. The agreement included delivery of the goods before the Plaintiff would transfer the payment. [Exhibit P-001]
3. After entering into the agreement, dearev was deported permanently for "Fair Play - Permission Abuse".
4. The Defendant admits their wrongdoings. [Exhibits P-001 & P-002]

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Failure to Deliver Goods or Services is defined in the Civil Code Act as follows:
4. Failure to Deliver Goods or Services
Violation Type: Strict Liability
Remedy: Up to 200 Civil Penalty Units; Specific performance
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.
Click to expand...
2. Due to the Defendant's permanent deportation, they are now unable to deliver the goods they have agreed to supply under a valid transaction.
3. They do not have a lawful excuse not to deliver the goods due to the reason for the deportation being their own unlawful actions.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Delivery of the agreed upon goods.
2. $24,000 DCC in punitive damages according to the remedy stated in the definition of Failure to Deliver Goods or Services (200 CPU).
3. $7,200 DCC in legal fees; totalling 30% of the punitive damages.
Totalling $31,200 DCC as well as delivery of the goods


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 25. day of August 2026

proof of representation pikaonly.png
P-001.png
P-002.png

 
Due to Staff telling the Plaintiff to sue for the goods, I assume that they can confiscate the goods or - the worse option - temporarily undeport the Defendant to allow them to transfer the goods.
image.png
 
xVoltrix said:
Due to Staff telling the Plaintiff to sue for the goods, I assume that they can confiscate the goods or - the worse option - temporarily undeport the Defendant to allow them to transfer the goods.
View attachment 97050
Click to expand...

C344 is owned by a party not summoned to the case, how exactly am I to interfere with that person's property rights notwithstanding this claim?
 
The shulkers containing the goods are in C345 (Exhibit P-003), which belongs to the Plaintiff (Exhibit P-004).

shulkers.jpg
pikaonly plots.png
 

Verdict


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Verdict on Inquest

Summary of Complaint

Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant to purchase five Christmas Lootboxes for $75,000 DCC, with delivery to precede payment. The Defendant was permanently deported before the transaction could be completed.
FINDINGS OF FACT

The Court finds that a valid transaction existed between the parties and that the Defendant remains willing to perform but is unable to do so by reason of his deportation. The goods are located in shulker boxes on plot C345, a plot owned by the Plaintiff.

ORDER OF THE COURT

Department of Homeland Security is authorized and directed to seize the five Christmas Lootboxes contained in the shulker boxes on plot C345 and deliver them to the Plaintiff.

Punitive damages and all other non-legal damages are declined as unwarranted.

Legal fees in the amount of $3,000 are awarded to Plaintiff.


So ordered,
Justice Mug in the District Court

 

Owner Veto


Long-deported players have no legal rights in Redmont and cannot represent themselves, retain legal counsel, or direct how their assets are distributed.

However, their assets remain subject to staff, courts, and applicable law, meaning legitimate obligations can still be enforced.

Courts must still require admissible evidence. The absence of a defence does not mean an allegation is automatically proven.

Statements made after deportation are inadmissible, including statements submitted through screenshots or relayed by another person.

Authentic records created before deportation remain admissible, even if submitted after deportation. Genuine pre-deportation agreements can still be enforced if sufficient admissible evidence establishes that the obligation existed, on the balance of probabilities.

Courts should be particularly cautious about fraud, forgery, collusion, and attempts to disguise an intended asset transfer as a pre-existing obligation. Staff can assist courts in verifying the authenticity or timing of evidence.

Staff are not accusing anyone in this particular case of dishonesty. The clarification is intended to establish a standard for future cases.

Evidence shows that no agreement was completed and consideration did not move before the long-deportation took effect. Therefore, the verdict in this case is hereby Staff Vetoed, the case is dismissed without prejudice.

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