Lawsuit: In Session fickogames v. Ollie_MineCraft [2026] DCR 22

[emilypancakes22]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


fickogames
Plaintiff

v.
Ollie_MineCraft
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On the 14th of February, 2026, the Defendant entered into a contract with the Plaintiff. Under the terms of the contract, the Plaintiff would supply the Defendant with the funds to pay for a property won in a DCT auction, and then the Defendant would transfer the property to the Plaintiff. After the Plaintiff sent the funds, the Defendant than removed the funds from their balance rather than paying for the property and became unresponsive to the Plaintiff's attempts at contact.

I. PARTIES
1. fickogames
2. Ollie_MineCraft

II. FACTS
1. On the 12th of February, 2026, the Defendant placed a winning bid of $28,000 on a DCT eviction auction for C117. (P-002)
2. On the 13th of February, 2026, the Defendant stated "i bought a diffrent property and can no longer aford it". (P-002)
3. The Plaintiff, who had placed the second highest bid on the property, offered to pay the Defendant the $28,000 to purchase the property in exchange for being given the property. (P-002, P-006)
4. On the 14th of February, 2026, the Defendant indicated that they understood that in order to pay for the auction they needed to hold the money in their account. (P-007)
5. On the 14th of February, 2026, the Defendant agreed to a contract with the Plaintiff giving him 2 days to purchase the property. (P-003, P-001)
6. On the 15th of February, 2026, at 10:26 CST the Plaintiff sent the $28,000 to the Defendant as outlined in the contract. (P-004)
7. The Defendant then posted a message in the auction thread stating "@Venne Montclair moneys in my acc lmk when you transfer plot". (P-005, P-010)
8. Approximately 4 hours5 hours and 45 minutes later, the DCT Inspection Officer running the auction stated that the Defendant did not have the funds and posted a screenshot showing the Defendant's balance at $17.38.(P-005)
9. On the 17th of February, 2026, the Plaintiff messaged the Defendant stating "2 days is about to expire", "Hows the buying going". (P-006)
10. 48 hours have passed since the contract was signed and funds were transferred, and the Defendant has not purchased and transferred C117 to the Plaintiff.
11. On the 21st of February, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff, claiming that they had been taken on a sudden camping trip by their family and for that reason had been unable to fulfill their contract. The Defendant also stated that they were unable to inform the Plaintiff of this fact sooner due to a lack of internet connection. (P-008, P-009)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant breached the contract by not purchasing and transferring the property, as such damages are applicable under Part III Section 6 of the Redmont Civil Code Act.
2. The Defendant transferred or otherwise used the funds given to them by the Plaintiff for purposes other than purchasing C117, which is a breach of good faith as defined by section 12 of the Contracts Act.
3. The Defendant's behaviour in transfering or otherwise using the funds given to them outside of their intended purpose represents outrageous behavior as defined by Part III Section 3.2b of the Redmont Civil Code Act.
4. The Defendant's behaviour in transfering or otherwise using the funds given to them outside of their intended purpose represents an event "where there has been negligence, acceptance of unnecessary risk, or mismanagement", which means force majeure as outlined in Section 13 of the Contracts Act does not apply.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $40,000 in Liquidated Damages as outlined in the contract.
2. $40,000 in Punitive Damages for the outrageous conduct of using money sent in good faith for purposes outside the contract.
3. $3,000 or 30% of the case value, whichever is higher, in Legal Fees.

Spoiler: P-001

Contract between fickogames and Ollie_Minecraft (1).pdf

drive.google.com

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: P-004

Spoiler: P-005

Spoiler: P-006

Spoiler: Proof of representation

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 18th day of February 2026.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Writ of Summons

@Ollie_MineCraft, is required to appear before the District Court in the case of fickogames v. Ollie_MineCraft [2026] DCR 22

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.

 

[gribble19]

Present, your Honor. I will be representing Ollie_MineCraft.

Spoiler: Proof of representation

 

[gribble19]

Objection

Objection - Breach of Procedure

Your Honor, all complaints must have details that meet the criteria set out in Rule 2 of our Court Rules and Procedures. See Court Rules and Procedures, Rule 3.1. These criteria include showing to the court that the cause of injury was against the law and that remedy is applicable under relevant law. See id. at Rule 2.1. Defendant does not believe that the complaint filed here by the Plaintiff reaches this standard. The only reference to law or precedence in the entire complaint is "The Defendant has also not contacted the Plaintiff offering any sort of justification as required by the Contracts Act to mitigate damages" however even after a thorough read of the Contracts Act, Defendants council is unable to find this requirement in the law in question. As with regards to showing that remedy is applicable under relevant law, the Complaint does not even make an attempt to do so.

Defendant respectfully requests that Plaintiff is made to amend their complaint with clear references to law and/or precedent in order to meet the criteria set out in Rule 2 of our Court Rules and Procedures, such that the Defendant in this case can eventually properly respond to the Complaint in question, without having to play any guessing games. Alternatively, Defendant respectfully requests that this case be dismissed Sua Sponte for failure to meet all criteria set out under Rule 2.1 of the Court Rules and Procedures. See id. at Rule 2.2.

Thank you, your Honor.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Objection

Objection - Breach of Procedure

Your Honor, all complaints must have details that meet the criteria set out in Rule 2 of our Court Rules and Procedures. See Court Rules and Procedures, Rule 3.1. These criteria include showing to the court that the cause of injury was against the law and that remedy is applicable under relevant law. See id. at Rule 2.1. Defendant does not believe that the complaint filed here by the Plaintiff reaches this standard. The only reference to law or precedence in the entire complaint is "The Defendant has also not contacted the Plaintiff offering any sort of justification as required by the Contracts Act to mitigate damages" however even after a thorough read of the Contracts Act, Defendants council is unable to find this requirement in the law in question. As with regards to showing that remedy is applicable under relevant law, the Complaint does not even make an attempt to do so.

Defendant respectfully requests that Plaintiff is made to amend their complaint with clear references to law and/or precedent in order to meet the criteria set out in Rule 2 of our Court Rules and Procedures, such that the Defendant in this case can eventually properly respond to the Complaint in question, without having to play any guessing games. Alternatively, Defendant respectfully requests that this case be dismissed Sua Sponte for failure to meet all criteria set out under Rule 2.1 of the Court Rules and Procedures. See id. at Rule 2.2.

Thank you, your Honor.

Sustained.

The Plaintiff is afforded 48 hours from this post to appropriately amend the complaint to satisfy the requirements of Rule 2.1 - Standing Application. In specific, the Plaintiff has not adequately shown the court which laws have been broken, and subsequently, the applicable remedy under said law.

Furthermore, Plaintiff is advised to fix the submission of evidence regarding P-001, as it is no longer accessible.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Sustained.

The Plaintiff is afforded 48 hours from this post to appropriately amend the complaint to satisfy the requirements of Rule 2.1 - Standing Application. In specific, the Plaintiff has not adequately shown the court which laws have been broken, and subsequently, the applicable remedy under said law.

Furthermore, Plaintiff is advised to fix the submission of evidence regarding P-001, as it is no longer accessible.

Your Honour, I am joining in as second-chair from Talion & Partners LLC, we request a sidebar

 

[emilypancakes22]

Sustained.

The Plaintiff is afforded 48 hours from this post to appropriately amend the complaint to satisfy the requirements of Rule 2.1 - Standing Application. In specific, the Plaintiff has not adequately shown the court which laws have been broken, and subsequently, the applicable remedy under said law.

Furthermore, Plaintiff is advised to fix the submission of evidence regarding P-001, as it is no longer accessible.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT
Your Honor,
In accordance with your ruling, the Plaintiff moves to amend the complaint as follows:

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant breached contract by not purchasing and transferring the property. The Defendant has also not contacted the Plaintiff offering any sort of justification as required by the Contracts Act to mitigate damages.
2. The Defendant transferred or otherwise used the funds given to them by the Plaintiff for purposes other than purchasing C117, which represents a breach of good faith.
1. The Defendant breached the contract by not purchasing and transferring the property, as such damages are applicable under Part III Section 5 of the Redmont Civil Code Act.
2. The Defendant transferred or otherwise used the funds given to them by the Plaintiff for purposes other than purchasing C117, which is a breach of good faith as defined by section 12 of the Contracts Act.
3. The Defendant's behaviour in transfering or otherwise using the funds given to them outside of their intended purpose represents outrageous behavior as defined by Part III Section 3.2b of the Redmont Civil Code Act.
4. The Defendant's behaviour in transfering or otherwise using the funds given to them outside of their intended purpose represents an event "where there has been negligence, acceptance of unnecessary risk, or mismanagement", which means force majeure as outlined in Section 13 of the Contracts Act does not apply.

where red text is removed and green is added.

Furthermore, the link in P-001 shall be updated to this link so that it remains accessible.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT
Your Honor,
In accordance with your ruling, the Plaintiff moves to amend the complaint as follows:


where red text is removed and green is added.

Furthermore, the link in P-001 shall be updated to this link so that it remains accessible.

Granted.

Please amend the complaint accordingly within the next 48 hours.

Your Honour, I am joining in as second-chair from Talion & Partners LLC, we request a sidebar

Please provide proof of representation/employment for the court.

Seperately, request for a sidebar is granted. Parties are to report to the judiciary discord within the next 48 hours.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Granted.

Please amend the complaint accordingly within the next 48 hours.



Please provide proof of representation/employment for the court.

Seperately, request for a sidebar is granted. Parties are to report to the judiciary discord within the next 48 hours.

Spoiler: Proof of Employment

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Granted.

Please amend the complaint accordingly within the next 48 hours.



Please provide proof of representation/employment for the court.

Seperately, request for a sidebar is granted. Parties are to report to the judiciary discord within the next 48 hours.

Your Honour, pursuant to the above proof submitted before the Court, I shall ping you in the Judiciary server to include me in the sidebar.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

@Dr_Eksplosive
Your Honour,
Sidebar was closed?

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

@Dr_Eksplosive
Your Honour,
Sidebar was closed?

Not intentionally. Court is investigating an issue with the ticket bot.

Another sidebar has been opened.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Sidebar has been concluded.

Defense is afforded 48 hours to file an answer to complaint. Please request a time extension if necessary.

 

[gribble19]

Answer to Complaint

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

fickogames
Plaintiff

v.

Ollie_MineCraft
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defendant AFFIRMS that on the 12th of February, 2026, the Defendant placed a bid of $28,000 on a DCT eviction auction for C117. The Defendant NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that this bid was the winning bid.
2. The Defendant AFFIRMS that on the 13th of February, 2026, the Defendant stated "i bought a diffrent property and can no longer aford it"
3. The Defendant DENIES that the Plaintiff, who had placed the second highest bid on the property, offered to pay the Defendant the $28,000 to purchase the property in exchange for being given the property.
4. The Defendant AFFIRMS that on the 14th of February, 2026, the Defendant agreed to a contract with the Plaintiff giving him 2 days to purchase the property.
5. The Defendant AFFIRMS that on the 15th of February, 2026, at 10:26 the Plaintiff sent the $28,000 to the Defendant as outlined in the contract. Defendant notes that the time specified in this fact is the time of this action happening in a particular and undefined timezone.
6. The Defendant AFFIRMS that the Defendant posted a message in the auction thread stating "@Venne Montclair moneys in my acc lmk when you transfer plot".
7. The Defendant AFFIRMS that the DCT Inspection Officer running the auction stated that the Defendant did not have the funds and posted a screenshot showing the Defendant's balance at $17.38. The Defendant DENIES that this was "approximately 4 hours later", as P-005 shows that this was over 5 hours and 45 minutes later.
8. The Defendant AFFIRMS that on the 17th of February, 2026, the Plaintiff messaged the Defendant stating "2 days is about to expire", "Hows the buying going".
9. The Defendant DENIES that the Defendant has not responded to these messages.
10. The Defendant AFFIRMS that 48 hours have passed since the contract was signed and funds were transferred, and tthat he Defendant has not purchased and transferred C117 to the Plaintiff.
11. The Defendant AFFIRMS that on the 21st of February, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff, informing them that they had been taken on a sudden camping trip by their family and for that reason had been unable to fulfill their contract. The Defendant also stated that they were unable to inform the Plaintiff of this fact sooner due to a lack of internet connection.
12. The Defendant DENIES that on the 14th of February, 2026, the Defendant indicated that they understood that in order to pay for the auction they needed to hold the money in their account.

II. DEFENCES
1. In Fact 1 of the Complaint the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant's bid was the winning bid. The Defendant can neither affirm nor deny this statement, as it depends on the definition used for "winning bid". While the aforementioned bid was originally thought to be the winning bid by the DCT, the auction ended up being won by a different bid, namely one by fickogames.

2. In Fact 3 of the Complaint the Plaintiff claims that Plaintiff offered to pay the Defendant the $28,000 to purchase the property in exchange for being given the property. This fact is not currently sufficiently supported by the evidence in case. Plaintiff alleges that this is shown by P-002, however P-002 solely shows Plaintiff asking a DCT employee whether such a construction would be allowed, and does not show plaintiff extending the offer to Defendant. Furthermore, P-001 states that fickogames will lend R$28,000, rather than pay $28,000.

3. The Defendant has messaged the Plaintiff after the messages referenced in fact 8 and 9 of Plaintiff's Complaint, and has thus responded to these messages.

4. The Plaintiff claims in their first claim for relief that "as such damages are applicable under Part III Section 5 of the Redmont Civil Code Act", however nothing within the claim for relief explains why consequential damages would be applicable, nor which exact consequential damages would be applicable. See Redmont Civil Code Act, Part III §5.

5. The Defendant was unable to fulfill their duties under the contract due to an event out of their control, a so-called "force majeure" event. The Defendant informed Plaintiff of the aforementioned as soon as the Defendant was able to.

6. The Defendant offered Rescission to the Plaintiff, through offering to return the $28,000, which would have restored the parties as far as possible to the positions they were in before the contract was formed. Plaintiff denied this offer, instead choosing to continue litigating this matter.

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 twenty-eighth day of February 2026.

 

[emilypancakes22]

Objection

Objection - Perjury

3. The Defendant DENIES that the Plaintiff, who had placed the second highest bid on the property, offered to pay the Defendant the $28,000 to purchase the property in exchange for being given the property.

2. In Fact 3 of the Complaint the Plaintiff claims that Plaintiff offered to pay the Defendant the $28,000 to purchase the property in exchange for being given the property. This fact is not currently sufficiently supported by the evidence in case. Plaintiff alleges that this is shown by P-002, however P-002 solely shows Plaintiff asking a DCT employee whether such a construction would be allowed, and does not show plaintiff extending the offer to Defendant. Furthermore, P-001 states that fickogames will lend R$28,000, rather than pay $28,000.

The final message shown in P-002 is the Plaintiff pinging the Defendant with a question mark, indicating that the Plaintiff was asking for the Defendant's thoughts on the above (ie offering to carry out the actions described). Furthermore, that a contract was signed and the Plaintiff transferred money to the Defendant shows that an offer must have occurred. That the contract uses the word "lend" instead of "pay" is irrelevant, as it is not unusual that the language dictating the transaction would be refined between the initial offer and the final contract, & this fact concerns the initial offer as shown in P-002.

 

[gribble19]

Objection

Objection - Perjury


The final message shown in P-002 is the Plaintiff pinging the Defendant with a question mark, indicating that the Plaintiff was asking for the Defendant's thoughts on the above (ie offering to carry out the actions described). Furthermore, that a contract was signed and the Plaintiff transferred money to the Defendant shows that an offer must have occurred. That the contract uses the word "lend" instead of "pay" is irrelevant, as it is not unusual that the language dictating the transaction would be refined between the initial offer and the final contract, & this fact concerns the initial offer as shown in P-002.

Response
Your Honor, perjury objections apply when a party intentionally lies or misrepresents facts under oath and requires proof of the aforementioned to be submitted alongside the objection. See Objection Guide. Opposing counsel has not even alleged that this occurred, let alone provided proof. They have instead explained why they disagree with Defendant's stance on an undetermined fact (which was already clear from their Complaint. Finding out which genuine issues of material fact exist is exactly one of the purposes of the pre-trial filings.) Making a point on why Plaintiff would be correct rather than Defendant, through a perjury objection, is however completely inappropriate. We respectfully request that this objection be denied, and that Plaintiff be advised not to abuse perjury objections in an attempt to make points which should be made in opening or closing statement.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Objection

Objection - Perjury


The final message shown in P-002 is the Plaintiff pinging the Defendant with a question mark, indicating that the Plaintiff was asking for the Defendant's thoughts on the above (ie offering to carry out the actions described). Furthermore, that a contract was signed and the Plaintiff transferred money to the Defendant shows that an offer must have occurred. That the contract uses the word "lend" instead of "pay" is irrelevant, as it is not unusual that the language dictating the transaction would be refined between the initial offer and the final contract, & this fact concerns the initial offer as shown in P-002.

Response
Your Honor, perjury objections apply when a party intentionally lies or misrepresents facts under oath and requires proof of the aforementioned to be submitted alongside the objection. See Objection Guide. Opposing counsel has not even alleged that this occurred, let alone provided proof. They have instead explained why they disagree with Defendant's stance on an undetermined fact (which was already clear from their Complaint. Finding out which genuine issues of material fact exist is exactly one of the purposes of the pre-trial filings.) Making a point on why Plaintiff would be correct rather than Defendant, through a perjury objection, is however completely inappropriate. We respectfully request that this objection be denied, and that Plaintiff be advised not to abuse perjury objections in an attempt to make points which should be made in opening or closing statement.

Overruled.

Despite the fact that the existence of the offer is insinuated by the virtue of a contract with those exact terms existing, the Plaintiff's Fact #3 clearly states:

3. The Plaintiff, who had placed the second highest bid on the property, offered to pay the Defendant the $28,000 to purchase the property in exchange for being given the property. (P-002)

This boils down to semantics and technicalities. Technically, the Defense is correct in denying the claim as evidence P-002 does not summarily prove that the offer was presented to the Defendant. Despite the existence of evidence P-001 (the contract) which counters this claim, given that the case has not even entered discovery yet and the Plaintiff has provided no allegations or proof of Perjury, either via intentionally lying or misrepresenting facts to the court, the court sees no reason to take further action.

With that out of the way, discovery is set for a period of 5 days from this post. Should both parties consent, discovery may be ended early.

 

[emilypancakes22]

The plaintiff submits the following evidence:

Spoiler: P-007

Spoiler: P-008

Spoiler: P-009

Spoiler: P-010

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT
Your Honor,
In order to rectify typos, fix a factual error, and indicate the timezone of Fact 5 (updated to Fact 6), as well as reflect events that occurred or whose evidence of occurring was only submitted after the complaint was filed, the Plaintiff requests to amend the complaint as follows:

II. FACTS
1. On the 12th of February, 2026, the Defendant placed a winning bid of $28,000 on a DCT eviction auction for C117. (P-002)
2. On the 13th of February, 2026, the Defendant stated "i bought a diffrent property and can no longer aford it". (P-002)
3. The Plaintiff, who had placed the second highest bid on the property, offered to pay the Defendant the $28,000 to purchase the property in exchange for being given the property. (P-002, P-006)
4. On the 14th of February, 2026, the Defendant indicated that they understood that in order to pay for the auction they needed to hold the money in their account. (P-007)
5. On the 14th of February, 2026, the Defendant agreed to a contract with the Plaintiff giving him 2 days to purchase the property. (P-003, P-001)
6. On the 15th of February, 2026, at 10:26 CST the Plaintiff sent the $28,000 to the Defendant as outlined in the contract. (P-004)
7. The Defendant then posted a message in the auction thread stating "@Venne Montclair moneys in my acc lmk when you transfer plot". (P-005, P-010)
8. Approximately 4 hours5 hours and 45 minutes later, the DCT Inspection Officer running the auction stated that the Defendant did not have the funds and posted a screenshot showing the Defendant's balance at $17.38.(P-005)
9. On the 17th of February, 2026, the Plaintiff messaged the Defendant stating "2 days is about to expire", "Hows the buying going". (P-006)
9. The Defendant has not responded to the Plaintiff's message. (P-006)
10. 48 hours have passed since the contract was signed and funds were transferred, and the Defendant has not purchased and transferred C117 to the Plaintiff.
11. On the 21st of February, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff, claiming that they had been taken on a sudden camping trip by their family and for that reason had been unable to fulfill their contract. The Defendant also stated that they were unable to inform the Plaintiff of this fact sooner due to a lack of internet connection. (P-008, P-009)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant breached the contract by not purchasing and transferring the property, as such damages are applicable under Part III Section 56 of the Redmont Civil Code Act.

where red text is removed, green is added, and all facts are renumbered as needed.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

The plaintiff submits the following evidence:

Spoiler: P-007

View attachment 75821

Spoiler: P-008

View attachment 75822

Spoiler: P-009

View attachment 75823

Spoiler: P-010

View attachment 75826

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT
Your Honor,
In order to rectify typos, fix a factual error, and indicate the timezone of Fact 5 (updated to Fact 6), as well as reflect events that occurred or whose evidence of occurring was only submitted after the complaint was filed, the Plaintiff requests to amend the complaint as follows:

where red text is removed, green is added, and all facts are renumbered as needed.

Granted. Please make the appropriate amendments within 24 hours.

 

[gribble19]

The Defendant submits the following into evidence:

Spoiler: D-001

Spoiler: D-002

Spoiler: D-003

Spoiler: D-004

Spoiler: D-005

Spoiler: D-006

The Defendant submits the following witness list:
- Ollie_MineCraft
- fickogames

 

[gribble19]

The Defendant hereby informs the Court that they have amended their Answer to Complaint as follows, in line with Court Rule 3.4. See Court Rules and Procedures.

I. Answer to Complaint
11. The Defendant AFFIRMS that on the 21st of February, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff, informing them that they had been taken on a sudden camping trip by their family and for that reason had been unable to fulfill their contract. The Defendant also stated that they were unable to inform the Plaintiff of this fact sooner due to a lack of internet connection.
12. The Defendant DENIES that on the 14th of February, 2026, the Defendant indicated that they understood that in order to pay for the auction they needed to hold the money in their account.

II. Defences
5. The Defendant was unable to fulfill their duties under the contract due to an event out of their control, a so-called "force majeure" event. The Defendant informed Plaintiff of the aforementioned as soon as the Defendant was able to.
6. The Defendant offered Rescission to the Plaintiff, through offering to return the $28,000, which would have restored the parties as far as possible to the positions they were in before the contract was formed. Plaintiff denied this offer, instead choosing to continue litigating this matter.

 

[gribble19]

Your Honor, Defendant respectfully requests a 36 hour extension to discovery. The Defendant is intending to file a permissive counterclaim, which may only be done before the end of discovery. See Redmont Civil Code Act, Part IV §2.3. The Defendant requires some more time to properly prepare this filing. Thank you, your Honor.

 

[gribble19]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
COUNTERCLAIM


Ollie_MineCraft
Counter-Plaintiff

v.

fickogames
Counter-Defendant

I. PARTIES
1. Ollie_MineCraft (Counter-Plaintiff)
2. fickogames (Counter-Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. On the 14th of February 2026, the Counter-Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant agreed to a contract (hereafter referred to as "the contract").
2. The contract stated: "If Ollie_Minecraft does not give the property to fickogames after 2 days after its purchase, he shall pay instead fickogames R$40,000 as payback for the issued money
and penalisation for breaking contractual obligations."
3. "The property" as mentioned in the statement in Fact 2, refers to plot c117.
4. Counter-Plaintiff has not purchased c117 since the signing of the contract.
5. The contract does not contain any other clauses, beyond the clause quoted in Fact 2, with regards to liquidated damages.
6. On the 15th of February 2026, Counter-Plaintiff was transfered $28,000 by Counter-Defendant for the purpose of purchasing c117 and then transferring the property to Counter-Defendant, in line with the contract.
7. After this, in a timely manner, Counter-Plaintiff attempted to purchase the plot by sending a message in plot c117's auction thread, informing the person responsible for running the auction that he had acquired the money for the purchase.
8. Later on the 15th of February 2026, Counter-Plaintiff was unexpectedly taken on a camping trip by his parents, on which he had no internet.
9. Counter-Plaintiff did not log in on the DemocracyCraft minecraft server between 15 February 2026 and 21 February 2026.
10. Counter-Plaintiff did not send any messages in the DemocracyCraft discord server between 15 February 2026 and 21 February 2026.
11. On the 21st of February 2026, the first day on which Counter-Plaintiff logged in to the DemocracyCraft minecraft server again, Counter-Plaintiff promptly reached out to the Counter-Defendant, informing them of what had happened.
12. On the 21st of February, Counter-Plaintiff offered Counter-Defendant to transfer back the $28,000.
13. Counter-Defendant denied this offer.
14. Counter-Plaintiff did not use the $28,000, still owns the $28,000, and has been able to repay the $28,000 to the Counter-Defendant ever since the 21st of February.
15. Counter-Plaintiff's legal counsel has informed Counter-Defendant's legal counsel that Counter-Plaintiff would be happy to repay the $28,000, as it is clear the contract was unable to be fulfilled due to a force majeure event.
16. Counter-Defendant's legal counsel informed Counter-Plaintiff's legal counsel that Counter-Plaintiff instead requested $60,000 to settle the other claim in this same court thread.
17. Had Counter-Defendant accepted the repayment of $28,000, the situations of both Counter-Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant would have been restored to as they were before the signing of the contract.
18. Counter-Defendant is continuing to litigate a legal case against Counter-Plaintiff, despite the offer of repayment.
19. In this legal case, Counter-Defendant has prayed for a relief of "$40,000 in Liquidated Damages as outlined in the contract."
20. In this legal case, Counter-Defendant has prayed for a relief of "$40,000 in Punitive Damages for the outrageous conduct of using money sent in good faith for purposes outside the contract."
21. Counter-Plaintiff has acquired legal counsel for this legal case, which has cost Counter-Plaintiff money.
22. Had Counter-Defendant accepted Counter-Plaintiff's initial offer, instead of continuing to litigate the legal case, Counter-Plaintiff would not have had to acquire counsel for the legal case, as it would no longer be existent.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. A person commits Abuse of Legal Process when they initiate or pursues a legal claim in bad faith, for improper purposes, or without reasonable basis; and this claim causes harm to the Defendant. See Redmont Civil Code Act, Part XII §2. The remedy for Abuse of Legal Process is 100 civil penalty units. See id. From the facts within this counterclaim, it follows that Counter-Defendant has pursued a legal claim against Counter-Plaintiff. See II.18. The purposes of this legal claim were at most threefold: $40,000 in liquidated damages, $40,000 in punitive damages and legal fees. See II.19, II.20. It follows from the facts in this counterclaim that the prayer for $40,000 in liquidated damages is improper, without reasonable basis, or in bad faith. See II.2, II.3, II.4, II.5, II.19. It also follows from the facts, that the prayer for $40,000 in punitive damages was for improper purposes, without reasonable basis, or in bad faith. See II.14, II.20. The only purpose that then remains are the legal fees. Pursuing a legal case solely for the purpose of acquiring legal fees is improper. Lastly, the facts show that the legal claim has harmed the Counter-Plaintiff. See II.21, II.22.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Counter-Plaintiff seeks the following from the Counter-Defendant:
1. A remedy of 100 civil penalty units.

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 seventh day of March 2026.

Evidence:
Counter-Plaintiff would hereby like to enter all evidence that was previously entered by either party to the other claim in this thread, to this claim as well.

Witness List:
Ollie_MineCraft
fickogames

 

[emilypancakes22]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
COUNTERCLAIM


Ollie_MineCraft
Counter-Plaintiff

v.

fickogames
Counter-Defendant

I. PARTIES
1. Ollie_MineCraft (Counter-Plaintiff)
2. fickogames (Counter-Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. On the 14th of February 2026, the Counter-Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant agreed to a contract (hereafter referred to as "the contract").
2. The contract stated: "If Ollie_Minecraft does not give the property to fickogames after 2 days after its purchase, he shall pay instead fickogames R$40,000 as payback for the issued money
and penalisation for breaking contractual obligations."
3. "The property" as mentioned in the statement in Fact 2, refers to plot c117.
4. Counter-Plaintiff has not purchased c117 since the signing of the contract.
5. The contract does not contain any other clauses, beyond the clause quoted in Fact 2, with regards to liquidated damages.
6. On the 15th of February 2026, Counter-Plaintiff was transfered $28,000 by Counter-Defendant for the purpose of purchasing c117 and then transferring the property to Counter-Defendant, in line with the contract.
7. After this, in a timely manner, Counter-Plaintiff attempted to purchase the plot by sending a message in plot c117's auction thread, informing the person responsible for running the auction that he had acquired the money for the purchase.
8. Later on the 15th of February 2026, Counter-Plaintiff was unexpectedly taken on a camping trip by his parents, on which he had no internet.
9. Counter-Plaintiff did not log in on the DemocracyCraft minecraft server between 15 February 2026 and 21 February 2026.
10. Counter-Plaintiff did not send any messages in the DemocracyCraft discord server between 15 February 2026 and 21 February 2026.
11. On the 21st of February 2026, the first day on which Counter-Plaintiff logged in to the DemocracyCraft minecraft server again, Counter-Plaintiff promptly reached out to the Counter-Defendant, informing them of what had happened.
12. On the 21st of February, Counter-Plaintiff offered Counter-Defendant to transfer back the $28,000.
13. Counter-Defendant denied this offer.
14. Counter-Plaintiff did not use the $28,000, still owns the $28,000, and has been able to repay the $28,000 to the Counter-Defendant ever since the 21st of February.
15. Counter-Plaintiff's legal counsel has informed Counter-Defendant's legal counsel that Counter-Plaintiff would be happy to repay the $28,000, as it is clear the contract was unable to be fulfilled due to a force majeure event.
16. Counter-Defendant's legal counsel informed Counter-Plaintiff's legal counsel that Counter-Plaintiff instead requested $60,000 to settle the other claim in this same court thread.
17. Had Counter-Defendant accepted the repayment of $28,000, the situations of both Counter-Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant would have been restored to as they were before the signing of the contract.
18. Counter-Defendant is continuing to litigate a legal case against Counter-Plaintiff, despite the offer of repayment.
19. In this legal case, Counter-Defendant has prayed for a relief of "$40,000 in Liquidated Damages as outlined in the contract."
20. In this legal case, Counter-Defendant has prayed for a relief of "$40,000 in Punitive Damages for the outrageous conduct of using money sent in good faith for purposes outside the contract."
21. Counter-Plaintiff has acquired legal counsel for this legal case, which has cost Counter-Plaintiff money.
22. Had Counter-Defendant accepted Counter-Plaintiff's initial offer, instead of continuing to litigate the legal case, Counter-Plaintiff would not have had to acquire counsel for the legal case, as it would no longer be existent.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. A person commits Abuse of Legal Process when they initiate or pursues a legal claim in bad faith, for improper purposes, or without reasonable basis; and this claim causes harm to the Defendant. See Redmont Civil Code Act, Part XII §2. The remedy for Abuse of Legal Process is 100 civil penalty units. See id. From the facts within this counterclaim, it follows that Counter-Defendant has pursued a legal claim against Counter-Plaintiff. See II.18. The purposes of this legal claim were at most threefold: $40,000 in liquidated damages, $40,000 in punitive damages and legal fees. See II.19, II.20. It follows from the facts in this counterclaim that the prayer for $40,000 in liquidated damages is improper, without reasonable basis, or in bad faith. See II.2, II.3, II.4, II.5, II.19. It also follows from the facts, that the prayer for $40,000 in punitive damages was for improper purposes, without reasonable basis, or in bad faith. See II.14, II.20. The only purpose that then remains are the legal fees. Pursuing a legal case solely for the purpose of acquiring legal fees is improper. Lastly, the facts show that the legal claim has harmed the Counter-Plaintiff. See II.21, II.22.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Counter-Plaintiff seeks the following from the Counter-Defendant:
1. A remedy of 100 civil penalty units.

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 seventh day of March 2026.

Evidence:
Counter-Plaintiff would hereby like to enter all evidence that was previously entered by either party to the other claim in this thread, to this claim as well.

Witness List:
Ollie_MineCraft
fickogames

Objection

OBJECTION - Breach of Procedure
As stated in the Redmont Civil Code Act Part IV Section 2, which was cited by the Defense earlier in this thread, Compulsory Counterclaims may only be filed during discovery. Discovery has been over for some time now, and the Defense knows this as they filed for an extension which at this time has not yet been ruled on. The Defense has knowingly violated court procedure, and for that reason the Plaintiff requests this be struck from the record.