Lawsuit: Pending Gribble19 v. The Exchange Inc [2025] FCR 102

[gribble19]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Gribble19
Plaintiff

v.

The Exchange Inc
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

Gribble19 entered into an implied contract with The Exchange Inc upon acquiring blocks of the TEX001 bond, which was issued by The Exchange Inc. The Exchange Inc has failed to pay the face value of this bond upon the bond maturing, and still has not done so months later. Furthermore, there are still two interest payments which have never been made. The Exchange Inc has breached the implied contract by failing to make the interest payments and failing to pay back the face value of this bond upon the maturity date. As Gribble19 owns 5,214 blocks of the TEX001 bond, this totals to a sum of $1,105,368 of damages caused to Gribble19 by this breach of contract. The Exchange Inc should be held liable for the damages caused by their breach of contract, and should be made to compensate Gribble19 for these damages.

I. PARTIES
1. Gribble19 (Plaintiff)
2. The Exchange (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. On April 24 2025 The Exchange Inc listed a bond on their discord server, with as issuer The Exchange Inc and with CUSIP "TEX-001". This bond is also known as "tex001" or "TEX001". (P-001)
2. On June 5 2025, it was announced in the "tex001" channel of The Exchange Inc discord server that "Interest payments 1/3 have been paid out." (P-001)
3. No further announcements regarding the bond have been made after this in the "tex001" channel of The Exchange Inc discord server. (P-001)
4. Each block of the bond has a face value of $200. The bond had a monthly interest rate of 3.0% and a maturity date of July 24 2025. (P-001)
5. At the date of this filing Gribble19 owns 5,214 blocks of this bond. (P-002)
6. At the date of this filing, more than 3 months after the maturity date of the bond, the face value of the blocks has not been paid out to Gribble19.
7. At the date of this filing, more than 5 months after the second interest payment should have been made, this interest payment has not been paid out to Gribble19.
8. At the date of this filing, more than 4 months after the third interest payment should have been made, this interest payment has not been paid out to Gribble19.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Gribble19 and Defendant entered in to an implied contract upon the purchase of the bonds. According to the Contracts Act § 4, the five elements necessary to enter in to a contract are: (a) Offer, (b) Acceptance, (c) Consideration, (d) Intent, and (e) Capacity. Contracts do not need to be written out expressly, but can be implied. According to § 6 of the Contracts Act, a contract that meets those requirements is valid and enforceable. According to the verdict in lcn v. Blazora Corporation [2025] FCR 18: "There is no doubt that, in the court’s opinion, an offering of any stock, bond, fund, or similar in a Stock Exchange constitutes a contract once accepted". According to § 7 of the Contracts Act, a breach of contract may result in remedies of damages, specific performance, or other equitable relief.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $1,042,800 in Compensatory Damages as a result of the Breach of Contract, covering the face value of $200 for 5,214 blocks of TEX001.
2. $31,284 in Compensatory Damages as a result of the Breach of Contract, covering June's interest payment at 3% of $200 for 5,214 blocks.
3. $31,284 in Compensatory Damages as a result of the Breach of Contract, covering July's interest payment at 3% of $200 for 5,214 blocks.

V. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

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 fifth day of October 2025

 

[AmityBlamity]

Writ of Summons

@asexualdinosaur, is required to appear before the federal Court in the case of Gribble19 v. The Exchange Inc [2025] FCR 102

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.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Ok

 

[AmityBlamity]

@gribble19 Unless I am mistaken, is it not the Commonwealth who currently holds possession of the Exchange?

 

[gribble19]

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
On who holds possession of The Exchange Inc.

Upon request by the Court the Plaintiff will hereby give their view on who currently appears to hold possession of The Exchange Inc. Note that this brief is based on the knowledge and information accessible to the Plaintiff at the time of writing this brief. Plaintiff would like to note that prior to filing this lawsuit, the Plaintiff has attempted to request information from the Government regarding who holds possession of The Exchange Inc in the Government's view or to the Government's knowledge. This however was seemingly met not with clear answers, but rather with confusion, unawareness, and at times even contradiction.

On factual matters

On the 27th of June 2025, Avaneesh2008, at the time the Secretary of the Department of Commerce (DOC), announced through the official government channel (#government-announcements) that the Department of Commerce was commandeering the Exchange. (See here)

On the 7th of July 2025, Avaneesh2008, at the time the Secretary of the Department of Commerce (DOC), released through the same channel a report. Within this announcement, he stated: "After a few days of work, the Department of Commerce has created a report on the failure of The Exchange and Voyager and the events leading up to their seizure." (See here)

The Exchange Inc has an in-game db, named theexchange. The owner of this db is the minecraft account GovCommerce, which is the official account of the Department of Commerce.

On Plaintiff's view

The Government has clearly announced that it commandeered The Exchange. Whether this means the Government transfers possession of The Exchange from the previous owners, to the Commonwealth, is up to interpretation of the law and the definition we use for the term 'holding possession of'.

The Taxation Act §8.(3).(c) states that "In extraordinary situations, the Department of Commerce has the power to commandeer and take temporary control of a financial institution." From this it is clear that commandeering is a temporary measure, during which the Department of Commerce takes control of a certain entity. To the Plaintiff, it appears that by having control of an entity, one would also have control over its legal decision-making and thus its representation in lawsuits and other legal matters. As it has never been announced, to Plaintiffs knowledge, that The Exchange is no longer being commandeered by the Department of Commerce, and further based on the fact that the Department of Commerce still owns the in-game db for The Exchange, it would appear to the Plaintiff that at minimum the Department of Commerce is still currently commandeering The Exchange. By the previous line of reasoning, the Department of Commerce, or the Commonwealth, would thus be the correct legal representative of The Exchange in this lawsuit.

Although not clearly announced in a government announcement, the Government has implicated in an announcement that the Department of Commerce not only commandeered, but also seized The Exchange. If The Exchange is in fact currently seized by the Department of Commerce, that would, in the Plaintiffs view, also imply that the Department of Commerce would be the correct legal representative of The Exchange in this lawsuit, as seizure implies taking not only taking control over the decision-making of the entity, but also taking control of the assets of the entity.

If the Department of Commerce would currently be neither commandeering or seizing The Exchange, it would then appear based on their ownership of the in-game db that they would be owning The Exchange. In this scenario it is unequivocally clear that the Commonwealth would be in possession of the entity, and thus the correct legal representative of The Exchange in this lawsuit.

Although it is currently not entirely clear to the Plaintiff whether the Exchange is currently being seized, commandeered, owned, or a combination of those at once by the Department of Commerce, it seems clear that at least either of the three is the case. Since all of the options would imply the Commonwealth to be the correct legal representative of The Exchange for this lawsuit, at least in the Plaintiff's interpretation of the law and the facts at hand, the Plaintiff does not think that the Court was mistaken in summoning the Commonwealth's legal representative to this case.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Thank you very much for the detailed brief. This Court is very much satisfied that the correct party has been called.

@asexualdinosaur you have 48 hours to file an Answer to Complaint.