Lawsuit: Pending Eddiegonza420 v. Home Investment [2025] FCR 95

[guiltypleasurez]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Eddiegonza420 (Represented by guiltypleasurez of ObsidianLegal)

V.

Home Investment
Defendant

---

COMPLAINT​

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

Home Investment, operated by Mapple24, solicited and accepted a significant deposit from the Plaintiff, offering professional investment services and assurances regarding the management and security of their funds. The Defendant has since failed to adhere to the terms of its own customer agreement, specifically by neglecting to provide the contractually obligated monthly updates on the portfolio's status.

Furthermore, the Defendant has ceased all communication with the Plaintiff, ignoring multiple attempts at contact. This abandonment of professional duty constitutes a severe breach of their contractual obligations and demonstrates an intent to permanently withhold the funds rightfully belonging to the Plaintiff. This conduct mirrors the actions for which the Defendant was previously found liable in Home Investment Clients Vs. Home Investment [2024] FCR 123.


I. PARTIES

• Home Investment - Defendant.
• Mapple24 - Owner of Home Investment.
• Eddiegonza420 - Plaintiff.

II. FACTS

1. On or around August 7, 2024, the Plaintiff was solicited by the Defendant to invest funds (Exhibit P-001).
2. On August 8, 2024, the Defendant provided the Plaintiff with a "CustomerAgreementDoc.pdf," to which the Plaintiff formally agreed (Exhibit P-002). The full text of this agreement is included as Exhibit P-009.
3. Following the agreement, the parties discussed the final investment amount including the "loss proof plan" and the method of payment (Exhibit P-002 - P-005).
4. On August 11, 2024, after receiving personal assurances from the Defendant (Exhibit P-006), the Plaintiff transferred $95,000 to the Defendant, which the Defendant confirmed receiving (Exhibit P-006).
5. The customer agreement states, "Near the end of each month (usually), we will send you your portfolio data such as: - Your current portfolio balance - Money made/lost each month - Companies we invested in - General company updates" (Exhibit P-009).
6. After an initial update on August 29, 2024, the Defendant failed to provide any subsequent monthly updates as required by the agreement (Exhibit P-007).
7. The Plaintiff attempted to contact the Defendant for updates on April 22, 2025, and again on August 21, 2025, but received no response. The Defendant remains unresponsive (Exhibit P-008).
8. The customer agreement states, "This contract is binding and if breached, an amount of $10,000 + 15% of deposited money will be paid to us" (Exhibit P-009). The court has previously ruled on the interpretation of this clause in Home Investment Clients Vs. Home Investment [2024] FCR 123 .

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. The Defendant has failed to return the full amount of the funds that the Plaintiff deposited with Home Investment, retaining the full $95,000 without lawful basis or justification, and has not returned any funds (Exhibit P-006, Exhibit P-008).
2. The Defendant's failure to provide monthly updates constitutes a clear breach of contract (Exhibit P-007 - Exhibit P-009). As established in Home Investment Clients Vs. Home Investment [2024] FCR 123, a reasonable interpretation of "us" in the contract's penalty clause refers to the Plaintiff, who is therefore owed $10,000 + 15% of the deposited amount (Exhibit P-009).
3. The Plaintiff suffered emotional distress and loss of enjoyment due to the financial uncertainty and the Defendant's fraudulent behavior.
4. The Plaintiff was deprived of the opportunity to invest their substantial funds elsewhere, losing significant potential income and growth due to Home Investment's wrongful retention of their money for over a year.
5. The Plaintiff seeks punitive damages to deter Home Investment and others from engaging in similar predatory and fraudulent practices in the future, a pattern of behaviour established in Home Investment Clients Vs. Home Investment [2024] FCR 123 .

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff seeks the following relief from the Defendant:

1. The full return of the Plaintiff's invested funds, totaling $95,000.
2. Payment of $10,000 due to the Defendant's breach of contract.
3. Payment of 15% of the Plaintiff's deposit, totaling $14,250, as specified in the customer agreement for breach of contract.
4. Payment of $25,000 in punitive damages to deter the Defendant from committing similar acts in the future.
5. Payment of $20,000 for emotional distress caused by the Defendant's actions.
6. Payment of $20,000 for loss of enjoyment resulting from the anxiety caused by the Defendant's fraudulent conduct.
7. Payment of $46,063 in legal fees, representing 25% of the total damages sought ($184,250).

By making this submission, I affirm that I understand the penalties for providing false statements in court and acknowledge that I am subject to perjury charges should I knowingly make any false statements.

DATED: This 10th day of September 2025

EXHIBITS​

P-001

P-002

P-003

P-004

P-005

P-006

P-007

P-008

P-009

Proof of representation

 

[guiltypleasurez]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

CASE: Eddiegonza420 v. Home Investment

Your Honor:

The Plaintiff will be irreparably harmed if the defendant’s assets are transferred to third parties or made irrecoverable before a judgment can be reached in this case. In previous cases, such as The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Westray & Partypig678 [2022] FCR 47 and 12700k v jb4bass [2025] FCR 93, the Federal Court of Redmont has authorized the freezing of a Defendant’s assets during ongoing litigation in order to preserve the ability to collect an award.

The Defendant, Mapple24, has demonstrated a clear pattern of behavior that necessitates this injunction. In the precedent case FCR 123, the Defendant failed to appear in court and was found liable for failing to return investor funds under the exact same contract. In the current case, the Defendant has ceased all communication with the Plaintiff, making it clear they have no intention of willingly returning the $95,000 owed.

The Defendant owns multiple businesses and real properties (Evidence P-IN1, P-IN2), providing ample opportunity to liquidate, hide, or transfer assets beyond the court's reach. The danger of this is not merely speculative. Evidence shows that the Defendant's primary business in this matter, HOME-Investment, holds almost no funds, while the Defendant has dispersed significant funds across his other business ventures (Evidence P-IN3). Furthermore, Discover Bank, the institution through which the Plaintiff initially transferred funds to the Defendant, is now believed to be operating as SSCM (Evidence P-IN4), suggesting their restructuring could have been used by the defendant to obscure assets. These actions demonstrates an imminent and ongoing danger of irreparable harm if the court does not intervene immediately.

Therefore, in order to prevent irreparable harm to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff asks for the court to freeze the following assets and prevent their transfer to any third party until the conclusion of this case:

1. Any funds up to the total amount owed presently within the balances of Mapple24 or any other alternative accounts thereof;
2. Any real property directly owned or beneficially owned by Mapple24, including but not limited to the regions redmonster_2004 and QuackTV or any other alternative accounts thereof (c.f. Evidence P-IN2);
3. Any other assets of Mapple24 or any other alternative accounts thereof, including but not limited to:
   • Accounts at any bank or financial institution. This includes SSCM, which is believed to be the successor entity to Discover Bank (c.f. Evidence P-IN4);
   • Financial accounts at the National Exchange of Redmont or any other non-bank financial institution;
   • Membership, shares held, or any other ownership rights in any business, including but not limited to: TheHut (#1), coolTomato (#2), TheMappleHut2 (#3), coolTomato4 (#4), coolTomato2 (#5), coolTomato3 (#6), TheMappleHut (#7), HOME-Investment (#8) (c.f. Evidence P-IN1);
   • Any funds, inventory, cash balances, and/or assets held by the businesses listed above;
   • Inventory, cash balances, and/or assets present in any non-registered business owned;
   • Property held in any Vault, chest, barrel, ender chest, or other locked storage container.

Evidence

Spoiler: P-IN1

Spoiler: P-IN2

Spoiler: P-IN3

Spoiler: P-IN4

 

[ameslap]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

CASE: Eddiegonza420 v. Home Investment

Your Honor:

The Plaintiff will be irreparably harmed if the defendant’s assets are transferred to third parties or made irrecoverable before a judgment can be reached in this case. In previous cases, such as The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Westray & Partypig678 [2022] FCR 47 and 12700k v jb4bass [2025] FCR 93, the Federal Court of Redmont has authorized the freezing of a Defendant’s assets during ongoing litigation in order to preserve the ability to collect an award.

The Defendant, Mapple24, has demonstrated a clear pattern of behavior that necessitates this injunction. In the precedent case FCR 123, the Defendant failed to appear in court and was found liable for failing to return investor funds under the exact same contract. In the current case, the Defendant has ceased all communication with the Plaintiff, making it clear they have no intention of willingly returning the $95,000 owed.

The Defendant owns multiple businesses and real properties (Evidence P-IN1, P-IN2), providing ample opportunity to liquidate, hide, or transfer assets beyond the court's reach. The danger of this is not merely speculative. Evidence shows that the Defendant's primary business in this matter, HOME-Investment, holds almost no funds, while the Defendant has dispersed significant funds across his other business ventures (Evidence P-IN3). Furthermore, Discover Bank, the institution through which the Plaintiff initially transferred funds to the Defendant, is now believed to be operating as SSCM (Evidence P-IN4), suggesting their restructuring could have been used by the defendant to obscure assets. These actions demonstrates an imminent and ongoing danger of irreparable harm if the court does not intervene immediately.

Therefore, in order to prevent irreparable harm to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff asks for the court to freeze the following assets and prevent their transfer to any third party until the conclusion of this case:

1. Any funds up to the total amount owed presently within the balances of Mapple24 or any other alternative accounts thereof;
2. Any real property directly owned or beneficially owned by Mapple24, including but not limited to the regions redmonster_2004 and QuackTV or any other alternative accounts thereof (c.f. Evidence P-IN2);
3. Any other assets of Mapple24or any other alternative accounts thereof, including but not limited to:
   • Accounts at any bank or financial institution. This includes SSCM, which is believed to be the successor entity to Discover Bank (c.f. Evidence P-IN4);
   • Financial accounts at the National Exchange of Redmont or any other non-bank financial institution;
   • Membership, shares held, or any other ownership rights in any business, including but not limited to: TheHut (#1), coolTomato (#2), TheMappleHut2 (#3), coolTomato4 (#4), coolTomato2 (#5), coolTomato3 (#6), TheMappleHut (#7), HOME-Investment (#8) (c.f. Evidence P-IN1);
   • Any funds, inventory, cash balances, and/or assets held by the businesses listed above;
   • Inventory, cash balances, and/or assets present in any non-registered business owned;
   • Property held in any Vault, chest, barrel, ender chest, or other locked storage container.

Evidence

Spoiler: P-IN1

View attachment 61633

Spoiler: P-IN2

View attachment 61632

Spoiler: P-IN3

View attachment 61631

Spoiler: P-IN4

View attachment 61630

Granted.

 

[ameslap]

Writ of Summons

Home Investment (@mapple24) is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Eddiegonza420 v. Home Investment [2025] FCR 95.

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.

 

[guiltypleasurez]

Motion

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

The Plaintiff moves that the court proceeds with default judgement due to:

1. That the Defendant has failed to appear within the 72 hour timeframe.
2. The defendant has previously through Home Investment Clients Vs. Home Investment [2024] FCR 123 exhibited a pattern of not appearing in court proceedings and therefore any other continuation of these proceedings would result in unnecessary delays for the court and Plaintiff.

Dated this 15th day of September

guiltypleasurez
For the Plaintiff

 

[ameslap]

Motion

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

The Plaintiff moves that the court proceeds with default judgement due to:

1. That the Defendant has failed to appear within the 72 hour timeframe.
2. The defendant has previously through Home Investment Clients Vs. Home Investment [2024] FCR 123 exhibited a pattern of not appearing in court proceedings and therefore any other continuation of these proceedings would result in unnecessary delays for the court and Plaintiff.

Dated this 15th day of September

guiltypleasurez
For the Plaintiff

Denied. A public defender has been called.