Lawsuit: Adjourned A__C et al v. Cheapscape [2021] FCR 121

StitchMix

Citizen
Draftsman
StitchMix
StitchMix
draftsman
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


A__C, BoopingBerry, Drew_Hall, Rurge, toaster, Yeet63638 (Lovely Law Firm representing)
Plaintiffs

v.

Cheapscape
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows: Plaintiff alleges the Defendant has failed to uphold their end of a contractual agreement resulting in the loss of over $12,000 for the investors of Fighters Coin.

I. PARTIES
1. A__C, BoopingBerry, Drew_Hall, Rurge, toaster, Yeet63638 (Plaintiffs, Investors/Partial Owners of Fighters Coin)
2. TPersonH (Legal Counsel)
3. StitchMix (Co-Legal Counsel)
4. Cheapscape (Defendant, Owner of Fighters Coin)
5. _Zab_ (Witness)
6. Wuutie (Witness)

II. FACTS
1. The Defendant founded Fighters Coin on November 15th, 2021, and pulled the cryptocurrency from the Onyx Exchange on December 5th.
2. The Defendant has failed to return the investments to the players of $12,841.99 in-game currency.
3. Fraud has been committed against the investors by the Defendant by their retention of the funds and refusal to return the funds.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant has illegally schemed the investors of this case by embezzling their funds of $12,841.99, providing excessive monetary damages against each investor. The active behavior to retain funds against the people of Redmont shows fraudulent behavior and breaks their trust of future investments (Law 10.1 -- Fraud).
2. The Onyx Exchange provides a contractual agreement for company owners that emphasizes that funds belong to each player regardless of pulling from the market. This contract also gives partial ownership of a company to help fund the owner’s company in hopes of providing successful outcomes; however, the Defendant revoked the ability for investors to obtain their own funds from Fighters Coin and caused individuals to lose on average over $1,000 of in-game currency.
3. The Defendant’s withholding of player funds gives the courts incentive to hand exemplary damages down to ensure investment security and deter future individuals from provoking distress on potential investors.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $13,000 for funds to be returned to each investor.
2. $6,000 in punitive damages, $1,000 for each investor.
3. $3,800 in legal fees, 20% from the total of §IV. 1 & 2 for consultation.

V. EVIDENCE
Evidence01.png


Evidence03.png

EVIDENCE02.png

Evidence04.jpg

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 14th day of December 2021.
 
Last edited:

xEndeavour

Owner
Owner
Chief Justice
Former President
Construction & Transport Department
RBA
xEndeavour
xEndeavour
chiefjustice
federal-court-png.12082


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of the A__C et al v. @CheapScape. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.
 

TpersonH

Citizen
RBA
TpersonH
TpersonH
attorney
Your honour, the allotted 48 hours has passed and the defend has not appeared. I would like to request a default judgement
 

xEndeavour

Owner
Owner
Chief Justice
Former President
Construction & Transport Department
RBA
xEndeavour
xEndeavour
chiefjustice
Your honour, the allotted 48 hours has passed and the defend has not appeared. I would like to request a default judgement

Sustained

Can the Plaintiff please provide the following:

1. Records of attempts to contact the Defendant in relation to the return of invested funds. Specifically, including any refusal to return the funds or recognise part ownership (Dates should be shown in screenshots).
2. Has Fighters Coin ceased trading outside of the exchange? I.e. can the coins be sold on the market outside of the exchange?
 

xEndeavour

Owner
Owner
Chief Justice
Former President
Construction & Transport Department
RBA
xEndeavour
xEndeavour
chiefjustice
The plaintiff has 48 hours to respond to the Court's above request for information.
 

StitchMix

Citizen
Draftsman
StitchMix
StitchMix
draftsman
Your Honor, we would like to request Wuutie to the stand to further elaborate upon the requested questions. As the respective owner of the Cryptocurrency exchange within DemocracyCraft and the Onyx Exchange, Wuutie would have the best credibility to respond.
 

xEndeavour

Owner
Owner
Chief Justice
Former President
Construction & Transport Department
RBA
xEndeavour
xEndeavour
chiefjustice
federal-court-png.12082



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

@Wuutie is required to appear before the court in the case of A__C et al v. CheapScape as a witness.

Witnesses are asked to ensure they familiarise themselves with the case and respond to the respective parties when questioned. They may also be cross-examined.

Witnesses are asked to identify themselves as present on the forum thread within 48 hours.​
 

CheapScape

Citizen
CheapScape
CheapScape
1. Records of attempts to contact the Defendant in relation to the return of invested funds. Specifically, including any refusal to return the funds or recognise part ownership (Dates should be shown in screenshots).
Only person to contact me was A__C
2. Has Fighters Coin ceased trading outside of the exchange? I.e. can the coins be sold on the market outside of the exchange?
The coin doesn't exist anymore apparently is the impression I got from wuutie when deregistering it from his exchange. This whole thing makes no sense to me because in the original contract all I was doing is issuing the coin like in real life. There was nothing in there that the company told me if I wanted to get off their platform I had to pay everyone back... This makes no sense to me. In real life you issue a coin for a fee, and if people buy it regardless of what happens in future the issuer/original person never has to pay them out if it crashes or is deleted (which can't even happen). We don't even know who the inventor of bitcoin is. This whole system doesn't even make sense. Please show me where in the beginning, not the new contracts they are issuing but my og transcript where I was told this information. Based on real life this makes no sense to me and I owe no one anything.
 

StitchMix

Citizen
Draftsman
StitchMix
StitchMix
draftsman
Objection
Your Honor, I object to the Defendant breaching of procedure and the addition of improper evidence.

From the asked questions, the Defendant attempted to answer these questions on behalf of the Plaintiff overstepping their permissions within the courtroom.

As for the addition of improper evidence, the Defendant has failed to provide evidence that specifies the asked question of attempted records of contact between the buyers of FightersCoin and the Defendant. The screenshots of the conversation between A__C and the Defendant shows no true relevance to the case besides the attempt to confuse and persuade A__C to retain the funds.

Finally, the points made by the Defendant in question two show no merit for the nature of this case, and only seems to be included in attempts to confuse everyone involved or steer the conversation into another subject matter irrelevant to this case.

From these objections, we ask that the responses from the Defendant be removed from the record.
 

Wuutie

Citizen
Justice
1. On the 7th of December, I asked the Defendant for the mandatory membership payment of $800 at the time, to recover costs of logging all the coins, etc. He refused to do so and asked to stop the payments. I said to him that this would mean the coin would be taken off the market and he raged on it. After some time he accepted that fact. I think Cheapscape has the honor to himself acknowledging the fact he refused the payment. In the meantime I asked the Defendant to reimburse the coin holders at the time because of the following reasons: after taking down the market the coin would be valued at $0, there won't be any activity surrounding it and wont be made available for purchases, etc, I thought it was only fair to do so. He raged again that this is not how it's going and that I stated that nowhere. Binance, myself, wants to keep that to the coin holders and the owner itself without interfering. We only do the logging of the coin and the updates nothing more. I asked him that he would talk to the Coin Holders/Plaintiff's and he refused to do so and did not want in any circumstance talk to them. He just took the +/- 12k (don't know the exact number atm) and took off. I'm sorry that there are no screenshots of this conversation because I deleted the channel for the reason that it was not operating anymore. After that, I told the coin holders what happened.
2. I failed to see the coin trading anywhere without the support of Binance, the Coin is atm worth $0. We do keep track of the coin holders' information for this moment. Also, it cannot be traded without the support of the exchange, we keep track of everything and if this would happen outside the exchange without the bot supported by Binance, this would be wrong and not possible.
 

CheapScape

Citizen
CheapScape
CheapScape
Objection
Your Honor, I object to the Defendant breaching of procedure and the addition of improper evidence.

From the asked questions, the Defendant attempted to answer these questions on behalf of the Plaintiff overstepping their permissions within the courtroom.

As for the addition of improper evidence, the Defendant has failed to provide evidence that specifies the asked question of attempted records of contact between the buyers of FightersCoin and the Defendant. The screenshots of the conversation between A__C and the Defendant shows no true relevance to the case besides the attempt to confuse and persuade A__C to retain the funds.

Finally, the points made by the Defendant in question two show no merit for the nature of this case, and only seems to be included in attempts to confuse everyone involved or steer the conversation into another subject matter irrelevant to this case.

From these objections, we ask that the responses from the Defendant be removed from the record.
Buddy calm down these are just my answers to the questions asked of me lmao.
 

xEndeavour

Owner
Owner
Chief Justice
Former President
Construction & Transport Department
RBA
xEndeavour
xEndeavour
chiefjustice
federal-court-png.12082



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
COURT ORDER

Noting that the Defendant has now appeared, I will reconsider the motion to revert to a default judgement.

Firstly, the Defendant has 96 hours to seek legal representation. Failure to appear in 96 hours with appropriate counsel will result in the Federal Court appointing you with a Public Defender in accordance with the Modern Legal Board Act. I have given you a 2 day extension noting the time of year.

Secondly, I'd like to remind the Defendant to maintain professionalism, not to speak out of turn, and to abide by the Court Rules & Procedures.

The Plaintiff will hold their line of questioning for the witness for the time being.

@CheapScape
 
Last edited:

xEndeavour

Owner
Owner
Chief Justice
Former President
Construction & Transport Department
RBA
xEndeavour
xEndeavour
chiefjustice
Objection
Your Honor, I object to the Defendant breaching of procedure and the addition of improper evidence.

From the asked questions, the Defendant attempted to answer these questions on behalf of the Plaintiff overstepping their permissions within the courtroom.

As for the addition of improper evidence, the Defendant has failed to provide evidence that specifies the asked question of attempted records of contact between the buyers of FightersCoin and the Defendant. The screenshots of the conversation between A__C and the Defendant shows no true relevance to the case besides the attempt to confuse and persuade A__C to retain the funds.

Finally, the points made by the Defendant in question two show no merit for the nature of this case, and only seems to be included in attempts to confuse everyone involved or steer the conversation into another subject matter irrelevant to this case.

From these objections, we ask that the responses from the Defendant be removed from the record.

Sustained

The question was directed toward the Plaintiff.

I would encourage the Defendant to include any evidence they would like to submit in an opening statement after they have sought legal counsel.
 
Last edited:

xEndeavour

Owner
Owner
Chief Justice
Former President
Construction & Transport Department
RBA
xEndeavour
xEndeavour
chiefjustice
All,

Thank you for your patience over the festive and new year period.

Does the plaintiff have any further questioning for the witness?

@StitchMix
 
Last edited:

xEndeavour

Owner
Owner
Chief Justice
Former President
Construction & Transport Department
RBA
xEndeavour
xEndeavour
chiefjustice
The plaintiff has 24 hours to respond to the court.

I have requested that the RBA provide a public defender for the defence, exercising my judgement under s10(3) of the Modern Legal Board Act. Thank you Dodrio3 for noting your attendance.

The public defender may only dispute the known facts of the case based on a point of law. The public defender may not introduce new evidence without approval from the Federal Court, as the case has reverted to default judgement.

The public defender may cross examine the witnesses and or provide a closing statement when called upon. The public defender is also permitted to submit motions to the court.
 

dodrio3

Citizen
dodrio3
dodrio3
1. On the 7th of December, I asked the Defendant for the mandatory membership payment of $800 at the time, to recover costs of logging all the coins, etc. He refused to do so and asked to stop the payments. I said to him that this would mean the coin would be taken off the market and he raged on it. After some time he accepted that fact. I think Cheapscape has the honor to himself acknowledging the fact he refused the payment. In the meantime I asked the Defendant to reimburse the coin holders at the time because of the following reasons: after taking down the market the coin would be valued at $0, there won't be any activity surrounding it and wont be made available for purchases, etc, I thought it was only fair to do so. He raged again that this is not how it's going and that I stated that nowhere. Binance, myself, wants to keep that to the coin holders and the owner itself without interfering. We only do the logging of the coin and the updates nothing more. I asked him that he would talk to the Coin Holders/Plaintiff's and he refused to do so and did not want in any circumstance talk to them. He just took the +/- 12k (don't know the exact number atm) and took off. I'm sorry that there are no screenshots of this conversation because I deleted the channel for the reason that it was not operating anymore. After that, I told the coin holders what happened.
2. I failed to see the coin trading anywhere without the support of Binance, the Coin is atm worth $0. We do keep track of the coin holders' information for this moment. Also, it cannot be traded without the support of the exchange, we keep track of everything and if this would happen outside the exchange without the bot supported by Binance, this would be wrong and not possible
when I look at all the information in the Biance discord or the onyx exchange discord I can not see anywhere that says that if you buy a coin and they fail to pay or shut down the coin that the owners of the coin will be refunded is their any section witch states this if yes please provide photographic evidence
 

xEndeavour

Owner
Owner
Chief Justice
Former President
Construction & Transport Department
RBA
xEndeavour
xEndeavour
chiefjustice
@dodrio3 please wait until called upon by the court in future.

Given the plaintiff has no further questions I’ll allow you to continue cross examining the witness.
 

dodrio3

Citizen
dodrio3
dodrio3
when I look at all the information in the Biance discord or the onyx exchange discord I can not see anywhere that says that if you buy a coin and they fail to pay or shut down the coin that the owners of the coin will be refunded is their any section witch states this if yes please provide photographic evidence
Wuuti would you be able to answer this question
 

Wuutie

Citizen
Justice
We dont make the rules for going out, Binance and the Onyx exchange handles as a third person between creator of the coin and the coinholders. The rules we set is for Crypto to enter the market but this is for fighting against fraud. Fighters Coin did not have to follow the rules that are set now. So at that moment no rules were set. We do suggest they do this when they close of also for companies.
 

xEndeavour

Owner
Owner
Chief Justice
Former President
Construction & Transport Department
RBA
xEndeavour
xEndeavour
chiefjustice
We will now proceed to closing statements, starting with the plaintiff.
 

StitchMix

Citizen
Draftsman
StitchMix
StitchMix
draftsman
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT


Lovely Law Firm
Plaintiff

v.

Cheapscape
Defendant

Your Honor, this case issues a serious matter of consideration due to the seriousness of this crime. The Defendant has shown no remorse in their embezzlement of such a large amount of funds, nor has the Defense provided evidence that acquits the Defendant.

I. INFORMATION
1. The Defendant has still failed to return any funds of almost $13,000 to the buyers of FightersCoin resulting in the assumption this behavior may be acceptable within the Onyx Exchange from other owners of Stock and Cryptocurrency Markets.
2. The Defendant provided screenshots that the “market,” presumably the Onyx Exchange, took down the cryptocurrency and without factual reasoning and admitted to agreeing to the contractual agreement of the Exchange, and being a new Coin to the market knew of the current contract agreement as an owner of the GoMarket Agreement.
3. Wuutie, the current owner of the Onyx Exchange and Binance, provided incriminating expert testimony against the Defendant by stating Cheapscape had indeed refused to stop payments and refused to pay the agreed membership payment, “running off” with the embezzled funds. This information concludes that the Defendant has indeed committed the fraudulent claims aimed at them.

II. CONCLUSION
As seen throughout this case, the Defendant has failed to provide any evidence that the funds of the cryptocurrency, FightersCoin, have been returned to their respective owners. The information provided by the Defense only further incriminates the Defendant due to the nature of the conversations between one Coin Holder, A__C, and the Defendant showing the refusal to refund any currency as the concept just “doesn’t make sense at all,” which has no merit in the courtroom. As well, claimed to the same Coin Holder that “the market” took down the coin, which would have been due to failure to pay the membership fees and a request to stop payments to Wuutie. From the entirety of this case, the Defendant has yet to show remorse for their actions, nor any intent to return the funds of the Plaintiffs. The funds must be returned to the Holders of FightersCoin to prevent future occurrences of this behavior within the Stock and Cryptocurrency Market; setting a precedent that this behavior will not be tolerated towards the people of Redmont. Thank you, your Honor, the Plaintiff rests.

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 5th day of January 2022.
 

xEndeavour

Owner
Owner
Chief Justice
Former President
Construction & Transport Department
RBA
xEndeavour
xEndeavour
chiefjustice
Thank you, does the public defender wish to provide a closing statement?
 

dodrio3

Citizen
dodrio3
dodrio3
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Lovely Law Firm
Plaintiff

v.

Cheapscape
Defendant

I. INFORMATION
1.The plaintiff is prosecuting for the money because the asked the defendant to pay them back
2.the defendant never signed anything with onyx exchange saying if the coin was pulled from the market they would pay the people who bought the coin
3.When buying Crypto currency’s with onyx exchange there is no guarantee that you will get you’re money back if the coin is pulled from the market


II. CONCLUSION
Since nothing was signed and no guarantee was given that the owner of the coin would have to pay the owners of the coin if the coin was pulled from the market I see no reason why the defendant should have to pay the plaintiff


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:6/1/22
 

xEndeavour

Owner
Owner
Chief Justice
Former President
Construction & Transport Department
RBA
xEndeavour
xEndeavour
chiefjustice

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT

A__C et al v. Cheapscape [2021] FCR 121

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant embezzled an amount of funds totalling $12,841.99, claiming that this has been both a financial loss to the invested parties and also an intangible loss to trust in securities trading.
2. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant was bound by a contractual agreement with the Onyx Exchange which provides for the permanent sale of securities, regardless of presence on the platform.
3. The Plaintiff claims that there are grounds for punitive damages as a means to deter similar future actions.

II. DEFENDANTS POSITION
1. The Defendant's Public Defender claims that there is no evidence of the defence agreeing to repay investors in the event that the coin be pulled from the market.
2. The Defendant's Public Defender claims that when buying cryptocurrency, there is no guarantee from the trading platform that you will get your money back if the cryptocurrency is pulled from the market.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. The opinion of the Federal Court is that when an investor purchases a newly formed cryptocurrency, especially at an initial coin offering, there should be a reasonable expectation that the cryptocurrency is going to remain on the/a trading platform for an extended period of time. While pulling a cryptocurrency from a trading platform shortly after it has been floated is not overtly illegal, it could be rightly regarded as an intentionally dishonest scheme.
2. The opinion of the Federal Court extends beyond the failings of the the defendant. The Onyx Exchange holds ethical corporate social responsibilities to ensure the legitimacy of the securities that it facilitates the trade of. Launching a cryptocurrency prior to any form of consideration to secure a contract is nothing short of corporate negligence. The trading platform has fiduciary duties to act in the interests of it's customers, to preserve trust, and to act in good faith. It is clear to the court that the Onyx Exchange shares liability in facilitating this coin, having acted on a promise rather than a contract.
3. The Federal Court does not agree that the value of the cryptocurrency is $0. The cryptocurrency is still in existence and therefore it has the capacity to still be of value. Therefore, the owners of the cryptocurrency may still trade the coin privately. The issue associated with this is that there is no individual or entity tracking the ownership of the cryptocurrency further.
4. Based on the known facts of the case, the Federal Court is satisfied beyond the balance of probabilities that the contracts of sale were made in reliance of a misrepresentation. There is a reasonable expectation upon the seller to disclose financial happenings to a potential investor. The Onyx Exchange was seeking payment and the Defendant knowingly failed to make this payment. It is with reasonable assurance that the Federal Court can determine that a misrepresentation at contract formation took place, causing the Plaintiff a loss.

IV. DECISION
The Federal Court holds the that the Defendant has engaged in a dishonest scheme, consistent with fraud, to obtain funds totalling $12,841.99. The defendant also made misrepresentations in contracts of sale that induced a contract, for which the best legal remedy is rescission.

The Federal Court hereby rules in favour of the Plaintiff.

The Federal Court orders the transactions be rescinded. The Defendant is to pay the Plaintiff $12,841.99. The Plaintiff is to return the cryptocurrency to the defendant.

The Defendant is to pay an additional $2568.40 to the Plaintiff in support of legal costs.

 
Last edited:
Top