- Joined
- Jun 30, 2026
- Messages
- 31
- Thread Author
- #1
Case Filing
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
aMoldyMuffin
Plaintiff
v.
Rac76
Defendant
&
Henwee12
Co-Defendant
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
I. PARTIES
1. aMoldyMuffin(Plaintiff)
2. Rac76(Defendant)
3.Henwee12(Co-Defendant)
II. FACTS
1. On 8/11, Plaintiff Hired Defendant and Co-Defendant to clear an area to bedrock(P-001).
2. Plaintiff Paid 500 each beforehand.(P-002)
3. When Plaintiff Came back to the plot,Their Maxed Beacon was missing(P-003)and Digging was not done, having only been done about 1/3 of the way to bedrock(P-004).
4.Plaintiff, despite verbal abuse from defendants, gave a fair and clear offer(p-005) to settle without lawsuit.
5. Defendants verbally abused Plaintiff, saying "I'm Beating my shit to ur angry messages" and "#diddy foid toilet"(P-006).
6. Co-Defendant Admitted that Defendent and Co-defendant Had stolen the blocks when Plaintiff tried to settle before court happened(P-007).
7. Plaintiff's plan was to grow and sell wheat vertically on the plot,100 layers of farms, and would have invested about 30 minutes a day into the farm.At 100 wheat farms (23×22, ~430 plots each) and $0.23/wheat, the theoretical max is about $16,800/hour if harvesting were instant and wheat regrew continuously. with tractors that harvest a full farm in 30 seconds, you could clear all 100 farms in ~33 minutes (~$9,890) per day.
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Breach of Contract.
In the Redmont Civil Code Act, Breach of Contract is a strict liability civil violation defined as:
(RCCA, Part VI, Section 1)
Plaintiff alleges the Defendants had entered into a valid and enforceable contract with them as defined under Contracts Act §4.2 for the Service of clearing the area to bedrock in exchange for 1.5k each.
A valid and enforceable offer was clearly formed when Plaintiff said in chat "i need the area cleared to bedrock" and "ill give 1.5k each is that okay"(P-001). Clear Acceptence was shown when co-defendant said "yes that is good".Clear Consideration was shown when plaintiff promised to pay and indeed payed 500 each up front(P-002). Clear Consideration was shown by defendants when co-defendant said "how much pay", indicating they are considering the offer. In this case, there is clear intention on both sides to form a mutual agreement as defined in the contracts law as a contract.
2.Misleading Conduct in trade or commerce.
In the Redmont Civil Code Act, Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce is an intentional/negligent civil violation defined as:
(RCCA, Part VI, Section 3).
Plaintiff entered into a valid and enforceable contract with Defendants after all requirements as defined by Contracts Act §4.2 were satisfied as laid out in Claim for Relief 1. By doing do, they intentionally mislead Plaintiff in an attempt to gain trust in their property.
3.Failure to deliver goods or services.
In the Redmont Civil Code Act, Failure to Deliver Goods or Services is a strict liability civil violation defined as:
(RCCA, Part VI, Section 4).
As shown in claim for relief 1, a legally binding contract was formed, and as shown in P-004 and P-006, the defendants admitted they did not deliver the requested services.
4.Damage to property.
In the Redmont Civil Code Act, Damage to Property is a civil violation defined as:
In this case, P-003 clearly shows the missing gold blocks and P-006 clearly shows the Defendants Admitting to taking them.
5. Unjust Enrichment.
In the Redmont Civil Code Act, Unjust Enrichment is a Strict Liability civil violation defined as:
(RCCA, Part X, Section 1)
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants obtained and retained benefit at their expense, in this case the $500, even when Plaintiff attempted to get back the money without a lawsuit(P-005).
6.Tortious Interference with business relations.
as shown by fact seven, the plaintiff would have made at least $9,000 per day on the plot, and thus the Defendants have interfered with his business relations.
7.Conversion.
In the Redmont Civil Code Act, Conversion is an intentional civil violation defined as:
(RCCA, Part VII, Section 7).
In this case, The defendants (a)admitted to stealing the gold blocks(P-007),(b)intending to keep it,(c.i)stealing it with the intent to permanently deprive the owner,(c.ii) and obtaining it through the deception of claiming to work on digging.
8.Humiliation.
according to the redmont civil code, humiliation is:
In this case, the Defendants clearly belittled the plaintiff with their ridiculous images(P-005), nonsensical words(P-006), and embaressing statements(P-006).
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Compensantory Damages of $500 each.
2. Punitive Damages of 500+15,000+12,000+6,000+$4,500+1,500per each day, from each defendant
3. Nominal Damages: In the case that no additional damages to Compensatory Damages can be awarded, and only in this case, Plaintiff seeks restitution in the form of nominal damages at $7,500 each to acknowledge harm done by Defendant to Plaintiff.
4.Humiliation. Plaintiff seeks $2,000 each from defendants for humiliation.
5. Legal Fees. Plaintiff Seeks 30% of damages awarded in legal fees.
V.Witnesses
1.aMoldyMuffin(plaintiff)
2.rac76
3.henwee12
4.puff_puff_(witness)
VI. Proof of rep and witness consent
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 thirteenth day of august 2026
