Lawsuit: Pending Copper Industries v. EnderEverdeen a.k.a. frequentlyfantastical

[Front_Bookkeeper]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Copper Industries
Represented by Front_Bookkeeper, Solicitor with Pizza at Law
Plaintiff

v.

EnderEverdeen a.k.a. frequentlyfantastical
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF'S CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE AND OWNER

On July 14th 2026, at 1:36 AM, I got a DM from EnderEverdeen asking if I was the CEO of Copper Industries and about the possibility of a partnership between our companies. I replied at 2:06AM, confirming I am the CEO and that was it.

At 12:58PM, I sent a message about a meeting for us to discuss this partnership. After a few messages back and forth, we agreed on our meeting happening at 8PM. At 7:22, I sent a follow up about this meeting. At 7:54, EnderEverdeen replied and asked for a delay on the timing of this meeting. A two hour delay was agreed upon between us. At 10PM, I sent another follow up, in which a reply was sent at 10:02, asking me to wait for 30 minutes. We made an agreement to make a group chat consisting of me, EnderEverdeen, their partner ericomg, my CFO v1rusxx. and my COO Crossiner. Before the group's creation me and EnderEverdeen discussed what Copper Industries produces. We ended our discussion at 10:08PM. I messaged again about the meeting at 10:52, 50 minutes after the request for another 30 minutes. At 10:56, I got a response, informing me that EnderEverdeen was making the group. At 11:09 I got the invite which I forwarded to Crossier and v1rusxx.

The meeting started, EnderEverdeen told us about their proposition and about the company they work with. During this meeting though, another person was present. outk, who we only knew at the time as Snow, was a part of the meeting and to my knowledge, was not supposed to be present. We mentioned our losses in profit due to the loss of our bottles if we decided to work with them. We asked questions about this issue, when Snow said something, I asked who they were. They responded in a rude manner which started the downfall of the meeting. We brought up the unprofessionalism that was present in the meeting and our discussion became an argument.

At 11:53, I told them to never contact us again and I left the group. At 11:55 I was sent another message from EnderEverdeen.

At 11:59PM, EnderEverdeen started to put comments on our forum that were untrue. These comments have been extremely harmful for our business as they made us sound rude and were telling people to not purchase from us.

I. PARTIES
1. Copper Industries (Plaintiff), Copper Industries' representative in these proceeding is the owner TheRandomAxolotl
2. EnderEverdeen (Defendant)


II. JURISDICTION & VENUE
This Honorable Court holds subject-matter jurisdiction over this civil action pursuant Constitution §16(1)(e), which provides that the District Court has original jurisdiction over minor civil cases whose value does not exceed $120,000.

The causes of action pleaded herein derive directly from the Defendant's statutory violations under Part V §1, Part V §3, and Part X §3 of the Redmont Civil Code Act, specifically slander and tortuous interference as defined therein. The Court possesses the inherent statutory authority to grant the requested financial restitution and equitable remedies pursuant to the Civil Code Act (Part II Section 5, Part III Section 3, Part III Section 5), which authorizes judicial officers to impose lawful remedies including (consequential) restitution, civil damages, and reasonable court orders.

This case falls within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the District Court because the damages sought ($52,500.00) do not exceed the $120,000.00 limit for minor civil cases, and the requested no contact order is reasonable given the Defendant's actions and breach of statute.


III. FACTS
1. At or around July 14th at 1:36AM (Plaintiff Time), Plaintiff received a DM from Defendant regarding a potential business partnership. (P-01)

2. Between Defendants original DM and at or around July 14th at 11:09PM a voluntary meeting was arranged between Plaintiff, Defendant, and multiple other parties to discuss this potential partnership. (P-02)

3. During the course of this meeting which ended at or around 11:53PM of the same day an argument over decorum and respectful behavior ensued, subsequent to which Plaintiff informed Defendant to have no contact with them or their Corporation. (P-03)

4. At or around 11:59PM of the same day, after aforementioned notice and as a result of these breakdown in negotiations, Defendant posted 3 defamatory and slanderous comments on the Copper Industries page in the #business channel of the DemocracyCraft Discord the contents of which are entered into evidence below. (P-04)

5. Subsequently, on July 15th (Plaintiff Time), Plaintiff contacted Pizza at Law for legal advice, at which time we drafted a cease and desist demand in an attempt to keep this matter from expending court resources. This demand referenced the specific comments in question, of note the "0/5" which Defendant has not removed and maintains no intention to do so. This cease and desist is also entered into evidence below and was served to Defendant at or around 11:43PM on July 14th (Counsel's Time).

6. At or around 11:55PM of July 14th (Counsel's Time), Defendant partially complied with the issued demand leaving only "0/5" remaining.

7. After further notice, as shown in submitted evidence, Defendant refused to remove the final comment and proceeded to attempt to intimidate and dissuade Plaintiff from taking legal action by claiming "If your client wishes to pursue this matter in court, my pockets run deep" and frivolously threatening a frivolous prosecution court-suit before Defendant had even filed their initial suit. (P-05, P-06, P-08)

8. Defendant has not, at any time, been a customer of Plaintiff, or had any business dealing outside of prospective partnership negotiations.


IV. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. Defamation as defined under the Redmont Civil Code Act (Part V §1)

Defendant's actions constitute a violation of the Defamation statute as defined under the RCCA, which specifies,

A person commits a violation if the person:
(a) makes a false statement and/or communication that injures a third party’s reputation;
(b) the statement is made to at least one person other than the plaintiff; and
(c) the statement is presented as fact rather than opinion.
This violation shall not occur where:
(d) the statement is substantially true; or
(e) the statement is a genuinely held opinion based on disclosed facts;
(f) the statement was made in the course of legitimate political communication;
(g) the plaintiff consented to the publication.

When taken in totality, considering the timing of the comments immediately after a break down in negotiations, the nature of the initial comments that have since been removed, and the clear intent of Defendant skirt the definition of the statute by leaving the most plausibly deniable comment, it is clear that these comments constitute an intentional, targeted, and continued bad-faith defamation campaign by Defendant against Plaintiff.

Any reasonable prospective customer who enters this respectable business forum and sees the remaining comment "0/5" is likely to conclude that this review has something to do with the services this business provides, the manner in which it treats it's customers, or some other aspect of it's offerings as a corporation. These facts make this comment and Defendant's previous comments defamatory by intent as well as impact.

Perhaps if Defendant's rating was made in isolation, Plaintiff might not have legal standing for defamation. However, given the surrounding circumstances and behavior of the Defendant we argue that Defendant's actions, held to the evidentiary standard of balance of probabilities, are clearly and patently an intentional effort to defame Plaintiff in bad faith due to failed business negotiations and to permanently harm their business dealings.

2. Slander, in the alternative, as defined under the Redmont Civil Code Act (Part V §3)

Entered in the alternative to the Defamation statute, Defendant's actions constitute a violation of Slander as defined under the RCCA, which specifies,

A person commits a violation if the person:
(a) commits defamation as defined in Section 1 of this Part; and
(b) the defamatory statement is made verbally, through Discord messages, or in-game messages; and
(c) the statement defames another person’s reputation, business, profession, or organisation.
This violation shall not occur where:
(d) the defences set out in Section 1 of this Part shall apply

As we have argued in the previous section, Defendant's actions clearly constitute a pattern of targeted defamation. Therefore, being that the manner and place of these comments were targeted at Plaintiff's business, it is clear that Defendant's actions meet the statutory definitions of slander, specifically that the comments were made through Discord messages and that the comments directly served to defame Plaintiff's business.

3. Tortious Interference with Business Relations as defined under the Redmont Civil Code Act (Part X §3)

A person commits a violation if the person:
(a) intentionally interferes with the plaintiff’s prospective business dealings or economic relationships; and
(b) the interference is accomplished through improper means or for improper purposes; and
(c) the interference causes economic harm to the plaintiff.
This violation shall not occur where:
(e) the interference was through legitimate competition; or
(f) the defendant was exercising a legal right.

In addition to defamation, Defendant's actions separately constitutes intentional, direct, and malicious interference with Plaintiff's "prospective business dealings".

Plaintiff's business thread is a place for prospective customers to inquire and explore the products and services that they offer. Rather than fulfilling this function this thread has become dominated by Defendant's retaliatory publications and the ensuing legal dispute. At least one (1) third-party had publicly engaged with this dispute, and that engagement itself has drawn at least two (2) reactions from other unrelated parties.

Given that the sole purpose of this forum is to provide a place for information regarding Plaintiff's business, it is reasonable to conclude that these three (3) respondents were prospective customers (P-07). These parties have been redirected away from the intent of the page, the business's offering, and towards Defendant's bad-faith accusations and publications. These factors have created and will continue to create foreseeably diminished consumer confidence and interference with Plaintiff's business practices until and unless the situation is remediated.

Given that not every customer that enters a forum will leave a remark or reaction, it is logical to assume that there are far more prospective customers that have been influenced by this dispute that just the 3 that we can empirically prove, and if unresolved, that more customers will be influenced in the future.

Defendant's actions were not legitimate competition, consumer protection, or truthful commentary but were instead an intentional campaign to harm Plaintiff's ability to attract customers through it's public business thread and satisfy each element defined under the Redmont Civil Code Act (Part X §3)


V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to consider the following exacerbating Factors in determining a final judgement which it see's fit:

(a) The immediate and intentional nature of these retaliations.

(b) Refusal of Defendant to engage in good faith compliance with the original cease and desist issued and served by counsel, thereby requiring the use of court resources.

(c) Defendant's knowledge of the law as a practicing criminal barrister, who was apparently representing a client during the meeting in which the aforementioned dispute occurred.

(d) Defendant's attempts to intimidate Plaintiff from pursuing legal action as is their Right under Redmont Law via attempted financial intimidation.

The Plaintiff, Copper Industries, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and issue an Order granting the following:

A. Removal of Comments: The removal of all comments from the Plaintiff's business profile including all original comments in question as well as any comments concerning this matter and potential litigation in order to restore a clean and presentable business front for the Plaintiff.

B. No Contact: As Plaintiff has chose to exercise their right to trespass Defendant from all of the their places of business, and Defendant has never been a customer of Plaintiff, his standing to give an opinion based on any "disclosed facts" as laid out in the statute is unlikely to change. Therefore, Plaintiff requests the court issue a binding order for the Defendant to have no contact with the Plaintiff, it's ownership, employees, or other agents to include posting comments on business profiles, discord servers, or other community forums run by Plaintiff for a period of no less than three (3) years. With the length of this order demonstrating the gravity of Defendant's actions and disregard for Rule of Law.

C. Consequential Damage Restitution ($2500): An order compelling Defendant to pay Plaintiff $2500 in consequential damages as a result of potential lost business while the original defamatory and salacious comments were present, for the defamatory comment that remains, and for the subsequent comments that have filled this business forum unnecessarily since.

D. Punitive Damage Judgement ($50,000): An order compelling Defendant to pay Plaintiff $50,000 in punitive restitution for the Plaintiffs malicious campaign of retaliatory defamation and slander, for his continued maintenance of defamatory comments after notice, for their attempts to skirt liability under these aforementioned statutes, and for Defendant's attempts to dissuade the Plaintiff from pursuing legal action due to having deep pockets. Plaintiff requests that the court consider the Defendant's self-professed deep pockets and apply a substantial punitive judgement with the hopes that this will re-enforce Defendant's respect for the Rule of Law and dissuade such violations in the future.

E. An award of reasonable legal fees in the amount of 10% of the total damages claimed or an amount considered reasonable by the Court. These fees are a necessary consequence of the Defendant's defamatory and slanderous conduct, as, but for the damage sustained, Plaintiff would not have required legal representation to seek redress.


Respectfully Submitted,
Front_Bookkeeper
Solicitor with Pizza at Law

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.

I also affirm, under penalty of perjury, that no generative AI was used in the writing of this suit.

DATED: This 17th day of July 2026