Lawsuit: Pending IgnitedTnT v. LeafLuxury LLC [2025] FCR 131

BlueRiverOtter

Citizen
BlueRiverOtter
BlueRiverOtter
Barrister
Joined
Jul 1, 2025
Messages
76

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


IgnitedTnT (represented by Talion & Partners)
Plaintiff

v.

LeafLuxury LLC
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

The Defendant entered into an acquisition contract whilst knowingly lacking the money assuming that a securities exchange would list corporate bonds of the defendant and that players would invest in said bonds. This led to the Defendant being unable to fulfill their contractual obligations and the acquisition being reversed.

I. PARTIES
1. IgnitedTnT - Plaintiff
2. LeafLuxury LLC - Defendant

II. FACTS
(comment: dates are in the MM/DD/YY format; ‘Torchlight’ shall refer to Torchlight Luxury Properties LLC)
1. On 11/23/25 at 11:57 AM (GMT+1) plaintiff made an offer to sell Torchlight Luxury Properties LLC (P-001)
2. The defendant proceeded to make multiple inquiries to the plaintiff on the assets, conditions, and debts of Torchlight Luxury Properties LLC. To which my client truthfully answered to the best of his ability. (p-001)
3. On 11/25/25 at 5 PM (GMT+1) defendant offered a contract to buy Torchlight for 175 thousand dollars.(P-001, P-002)
4. The plaintiff then proceeded to sign the contract at 5:52 PM (GMT +1) (p-001)
5. On 11/25/25 at 11:42 PM (GMT+1) the defendant then signed the contract constituting acceptance and mutual agreement. (P-001)
6. At 11:52 PM (GMT+1) plaintiff began transferring assets and equity over to LeafLuxury LLC as well as disclosing what contracts LeafLuxury LLC is under and general information regarding the status of the LLC. (P-001)
7. On 11/26/25 at 10:49 (GMT +1) plaintiff said he would be awaiting payment, defendant responded by saying that not the in-game account had not been transferred yet and thus the defendant did not meet the required performance before compensation (P-001)
8. All assets are transferred to the defendant on 11/26/25 at 4:13 PM (GMT+1) (P-001)
9. The contract for the selling of the LLC gives the buyer 48 hours upon the performance of the seller to deliver appropriate funds, after that deadline elapses the buyer is given an additional 48 hours to deliver the funds late during which late fees accumulate 500 dollars per every hour that compensation is late capped at 1000. (P-001)
10. On 11/27/25 at 5:34 PM (GMT+1) the defendant alleges that "financing" is slow and that payment will be received either tomorrow or late. Defendant states that if it is late that the plaintiff may reverse the sale as outlined in the contract. (P-001)
11. On 11/27/25 at 6:56 PM Plaintiff states that he would be willing to waive the late fee if the defendant needs more time, however he would like an indication of when it would be and the Defendant’s progress on securing funds. Defendant alleges he does not know the answers to neither the former nor the latter. (P-001)
12. On 11/30/25 at 4:30 PM (GMT + 1) Defendant notifies Plaintiff that he has the opportunity to reverse the sale by nullifying the contract (P-001)
13. On 11/30/25 the defendant alleges that “they just got financing through” and says provided the Plaintiff is willing the defendant can “go ahead with the deal” and including the respective late penalty. (P-001)
14. On 12/01/25 at Defendant alleges the financing payment is still being delivered. (P-001)
15. On 12/0125 Plaintiff asks the status of financing, defendant responds that he hadn't got word with the financier in a while. (P-001)
16. On 12/01/25 at 9:45 PM once prompted by the Plaintiff, the defendant said that the financier was the National Exchange of Redmont and that the defendant was attempting to list corporate bonds. (P-001)
17. On 12/02/25 at 12:19 Plaintiff asks on any updates, Defendant responds no and that the Plaintiff should reverse the sale if they don't get an answer by December 5th (P-001)
18. 25 Minutes later Plaintiff responds by inquiring if the Defendant could provide screenshots of the Defendants last conversation with them. Defendant denys. (P-001)
19. The Plaintiff nullifies the contract out of lack of confidence in the Defendant (P-001)
20. The Defendant almost immediately after shares the screenshot the Defendant asked for in fact 18. (P-001, P-003)
21. The Defendant fully transfers all assets bought. (P-001)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing​
Before the Plaintiff will argue whether the Defendant breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing the Plaintiff will assert that it is well beyond the balance of probabilities that the Defendant knowingly entered a transactional contract without having the requisite funds to pay. On 11/25/25 the Defendant signed the acquisition contract as previously established in fact 5, only a little under 42 hours not even 2 days later the Defendant announced that the Defendant did not have the money to pay as he was awaiting the listing of corporate bonds.

At the end of the day the Defendant entered into a contract that he knew he didn't yet have the money for, assuming that people would make an investment, leading to payment being 4 days late during which the Defendant repeatedly alleged corporate bond money was arriving and in the end my client choosing to nullify the acquisition out of lack of confidence.

This is a clear cut and dry case of breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing. I will once again reiterate this for the sake of clarity: not only did the Defendant fail to fulfill his contractual obligations but he entered a contract under the assumption that ordinary people would buy his investment in an act of incredibly outrageous conduct.

2. Time & Labor in Executing the Contract​
My client spent much of his time and labor to transfer equity, to brief the Defendant on the assets the company held, to transfer the firm itself, and to transfer the assets of the LLC in order to perform a contract that he was ultimately never given consideration for due to the shortcomings of the Defendant and should be justly compensated accordingly.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $190,000 in Punitive Damages for the defendant entering into a contract whilst knowingly being unable to perform it on the assumption that people would buy his bonds, as well as the failure to perform in the end.
7. $6,000 in consequential damages for the Plaintiff's time and labor in executing his end of the contract
6. 30% of damages awarded as legal fees to Talion & Partners (pay to ATP)

Evidence:
Chat log: attached
Screenshot of the conversation with NER pursuant to fact 20:
NER.jpg

Witnesses:
None

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 11th day of December, 2025 (UTC-5)

 

Attachments

Last edited:

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


IgnitedTnT (represented by Talion & Partners)
Plaintiff

v.

LeafLuxury LLC
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF



I. PARTIES
1. IgnitedTnT - Plaintiff
2. LeafLuxury LLC - Defendant

II. FACTS
(comment: dates are in the MM/DD/YY format; ‘Torchlight’ shall refer to Torchlight Luxury Properties LLC)
1. On 11/23/25 at 11:57 AM (GMT+1) plaintiff made an offer to sell Torchlight Luxury Properties LLC (P-001)
2. The defendant proceeded to make multiple inquiries to the plaintiff on the assets, conditions, and debts of Torchlight Luxury Properties LLC. To which my client truthfully answered to the best of his ability. (p-001)
3. On 11/25/25 at 5 PM (GMT+1) defendant offered a contract to buy Torchlight for 175 thousand dollars.(P-001, P-002)
4. The plaintiff then proceeded to sign the contract at 5:52 PM (GMT +1) (p-001)
5. On 11/25/25 at 11:42 PM (GMT+1) the defendant then signed the contract constituting acceptance and mutual agreement. (P-001)
6. At 11:52 PM (GMT+1) plaintiff began transferring assets and equity over to LeafLuxury LLC as well as disclosing what contracts LeafLuxury LLC is under and general information regarding the status of the LLC. (P-001)
7. On 11/26/25 at 10:49 (GMT +1) plaintiff said he would be awaiting payment, defendant responded by saying that not the in-game account had not been transferred yet and thus the defendant did not meet the required performance before compensation (P-001)
8. All assets are transferred to the defendant on 11/26/25 at 4:13 PM (GMT+1) (P-001)
9. The contract for the selling of the LLC gives the buyer 48 hours upon the performance of the seller to deliver appropriate funds, after that deadline elapses the buyer is given an additional 48 hours to deliver the funds late during which late fees accumulate 500 dollars per every hour that compensation is late capped at 1000. (P-001)
10. On 11/27/25 at 5:34 PM (GMT+1) the defendant alleges that "financing" is slow and that payment will be received either tomorrow or late. Defendant states that if it is late that the plaintiff may reverse the sale as outlined in the contract. (P-001)
11. On 11/27/25 at 6:56 PM Plaintiff states that he would be willing to waive the late fee if the defendant needs more time, however he would like an indication of when it would be and the Defendant’s progress on securing funds. Defendant alleges he does not know the answers to neither the former nor the latter. (P-001)
12. On 11/30/25 at 4:30 PM (GMT + 1) Defendant notifies Plaintiff that he has the opportunity to reverse the sale by nullifying the contract (P-001)
13. On 11/30/25 the defendant alleges that “they just got financing through” and says provided the Plaintiff is willing the defendant can “go ahead with the deal” and including the respective late penalty. (P-001)
14. On 12/01/25 at Defendant alleges the financing payment is still being delivered. (P-001)
15. On 12/0125 Plaintiff asks the status of financing, defendant responds that he hadn't got word with the financier in a while. (P-001)
16. On 12/01/25 at 9:45 PM once prompted by the Plaintiff, the defendant said that the financier was the National Exchange of Redmont and that the defendant was attempting to list corporate bonds. (P-001)
17. On 12/02/25 at 12:19 Plaintiff asks on any updates, Defendant responds no and that the Plaintiff should reverse the sale if they don't get an answer by December 5th (P-001)
18. 25 Minutes later Plaintiff responds by inquiring if the Defendant could provide screenshots of the Defendants last conversation with them. Defendant denys. (P-001)
19. The Plaintiff nullifies the contract out of lack of confidence in the Defendant (P-001)
20. The Defendant almost immediately after shares the screenshot the Defendant asked for in fact 18. (P-001, P-003)
21. The Defendant fully transfers all assets bought. (P-001)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing​
Before the Plaintiff will argue whether the Defendant breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing the Plaintiff will assert that it is well beyond the balance of probabilities that the Defendant knowingly entered a transactional contract without having the requisite funds to pay. On 11/25/25 the Defendant signed the acquisition contract as previously established in fact 5, only a little under 42 hours not even 2 days later the Defendant announced that the Defendant did not have the money to pay as he was awaiting the listing of corporate bonds.

At the end of the day the Defendant entered into a contract that he knew he didn't yet have the money for, assuming that people would make an investment, leading to payment being 4 days late during which the Defendant repeatedly alleged corporate bond money was arriving and in the end my client choosing to nullify the acquisition out of lack of confidence.

This is a clear cut and dry case of breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing. I will once again reiterate this for the sake of clarity: not only did the Defendant fail to fulfill his contractual obligations but he entered a contract under the assumption that ordinary people would buy his investment in an act of incredibly outrageous conduct.

2. Time & Labor in Executing the Contract​
My client spent much of his time and labor to transfer equity, to brief the Defendant on the assets the company held, to transfer the firm itself, and to transfer the assets of the LLC in order to perform a contract that he was ultimately never given consideration for due to the shortcomings of the Defendant and should be justly compensated accordingly.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $190,000 in Punitive Damages for the defendant entering into a contract whilst knowingly being unable to perform it on the assumption that people would buy his bonds, as well as the failure to perform in the end.
7. $6,000 in consequential damages for the Plaintiff's time and labor in executing his end of the contract
6. 30% of damages awarded as legal fees to Talion & Partners (pay to ATP)

Evidence:
Download html file and open (if anyone is unable to open the HTML file Plaintiff's counsel would be happy to provide screenshots instead upon request)
Screenshot of the conversation with NER pursuant to fact 20: View attachment 68745

Witnesses:
None

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 11th day of December, 2025 (UTC-5)

P-001 needs to be a pdf.
 

Writ of Summons

@RiggoSoft , is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of IgnitedTNT v. Leafluxury LLC [2025] FCR 131


In the interest of more efficient Courtroom proceedings, the Court will permit responses to motions without prior Court permission. The deadline for said motions shall be 48 hours.

Furthermore, in obedience with Rule 1.4, parties are advised that engaging in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of this Court or its proceedings may be held in Contempt of Court.

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.

 

Writ of Summons

@RiggoSoft , is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of IgnitedTNT v. Leafluxury LLC [2025] FCR 131


In the interest of more efficient Courtroom proceedings, the Court will permit responses to motions without prior Court permission. The deadline for said motions shall be 48 hours.

Furthermore, in obedience with Rule 1.4, parties are advised that engaging in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of this Court or its proceedings may be held in Contempt of Court.


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.

 
Last edited:

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Breach of Procedure

Your honor Plantiff's counsel is not accusing Mr. Riggo of bad faith as it could have been a honest mistake however in the interest of making it clear that the Defendant has announced his presence, 7 minutes after Mr Riggo announced his presence by replying to the writ of summons and saying "I'm here" the message was edited to remove said phrase "i'm here".

 

Attachments

  • screenshot.png
    screenshot.png
    59.3 KB · Views: 25
Yes this is my fault I’m still trying to figure out how these templates work as they aren’t working to well for me at the moment I am working on giving an official answer to the action soon but I did want to make it known that I have received it. Sorry for any confusion

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Breach of Procedure

Your honor Plantiff's counsel is not accusing Mr. Riggo of bad faith as it could have been a honest mistake however in the interest of making it clear that the Defendant has announced his presence, 7 minutes after Mr Riggo announced his presence by replying to the writ of summons and saying "I'm here" the message was edited to remove said phrase "i'm here".

 
Yes this is my fault I’m still trying to figure out how these templates work as they aren’t working to well for me at the moment I am working on giving an official answer to the action soon but I did want to make it known that I have received it. Sorry for any confusion
Thanks for appearing, you have 48 Hours to offer an Answer.
 

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Breach of Procedure

Your honor Plantiff's counsel is not accusing Mr. Riggo of bad faith as it could have been a honest mistake however in the interest of making it clear that the Defendant has announced his presence, 7 minutes after Mr Riggo announced his presence by replying to the writ of summons and saying "I'm here" the message was edited to remove said phrase "i'm here".

SUSTAINED.
 

Answer to Complaint



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT



IgnitedTnT (Repersented by Talion & Partners)

Plaintiff


v.



LeafLuxury LLC
Defendant


I. Answer To Complaint
1. The defendant, affirms that the plaintiff offered to sell Torchlight Luxery Properties LLC.
2. The defendant, denies that the plaintiff was honest and truthful to the best of their knowledge about the condition of the company's assets and liabilities.
3. The defendant, affirms that the defendant offered $175,000 for Torchlight Luxery Properties LLC including all of their assets.
4. The defendant, affirms that the plaintiff signed the sale agreement.

5. The defendant, affirms that the defendant signed the sale agreement
6. The defendant, affirms that the plaintiff began transferring all assets and equity over to the defendant.
7. The defendant, affirms that the plaintiff incorrectly stated they would be awaiting payment having not fulfilled their contractual obligations
8. The defendant, affirms that the plaintiff transferred all assets to the defendant
9. The defendant, affirms that their is a stipulation in the sale agreement that gives a 48 hours period after the initial 48 hours have passed for the defendant to deliver the money with a maximum possible late fee of $1,000.
10. The defendant, affirms that they warned the plaintiff that financing this deal may be a long process that goes beyond the 48 hour period and to reverse the sale if it does.
11. The defendant, affirms that the plaintiff would be willing to waive the late fee if the defendant needed more time, and the asking of the questions of when would the financing be deliver to the defendant and the progress of the defendant securing financing.
12. The defendant, affirms that the defendant had told the plaintiff that he was now able to reverse the sale.
13. The defendant, affirms that the defendant had told the plaintiff that the financing was coming through and that the defendant was willing to continue the deal despite the ability to nullify.
14. The defendant, affirms that the defendant had told the plaintiff that financing was still being delivered.
15. The defendant, affirms that the defendant upon prompted told the plaintiff the truth regarding the financier not responding to the defendant.
16. The defendant, affirms that the defendant told the plaintiff that the defendant planned to list corporate bonds to secure financing
17. The defendant, affirms that that the defendant had informed that they should reverse the sale if financing did not come by December 5th
18. The defendant, affirms that the defendant when prompted by the plaintiff, did not provide a screenshot.
19. The defendant, affirms that the plaintiff had reversed the sale.
20. The defendant, affirms that the defendant had shared the screenshot to the plaintiff after the plaintiff had nullified the sale.
21. The defendant, affirms that the defendant had fulfilled his contractual obligations and delivered the assets and equity to the plaintiff.

II. Defences
To clarify the defense will not recognize any statement from the plaintiff referring to the defendant as he, him, or his as the defense is the LeafLuxury Limited Liability Company not an individual. The reason the defendant brings this up is to avoid confusion, additionally what makes the defendant bring this up is in the plaintiff’s claims for relief “the Defendant entered into a contract that he knew he”

1. The defendant did not knowingly enter a contract the defendant could not pay for and did not act in bad faith. The defendant had been in contact with multiple financiers regarding financing the deal, many of them had responded back to the defendant however upon further inquiries by the defendant did not respond further. Additionally the defendant had warned and suggested the plaintiff into reversing the sale if the defendant passed the outlined window of time to deliver the payment to the plaintiff. Furthermore the plaintiff had attempted to hide the fact from the defendant that the properties the defendant had been attempting to purchase had outstanding mortgages on them.

2. The plaintiff had spent effectively less than 5 hours of time while the defendant had drafted the entire agreement, conducted questions for the plaintiff and had attempted to secure financing for the deal.

Evidence:
I currently am having technical difficulties submitting evidence however I will submit any relevant exhibits tonight or tomorrow.

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 14th day of Decemeber 2025

 

Answer to Complaint



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT



IgnitedTnT (Repersented by Talion & Partners)

Plaintiff


v.



LeafLuxury LLC
Defendant


I. Answer To Complaint
1. The defendant, affirms that the plaintiff offered to sell Torchlight Luxery Properties LLC.
2. The defendant, denies that the plaintiff was honest and truthful to the best of their knowledge about the condition of the company's assets and liabilities.
3. The defendant, affirms that the defendant offered $175,000 for Torchlight Luxery Properties LLC including all of their assets.
4. The defendant, affirms that the plaintiff signed the sale agreement.

5. The defendant, affirms that the defendant signed the sale agreement
6. The defendant, affirms that the plaintiff began transferring all assets and equity over to the defendant.
7. The defendant, affirms that the plaintiff incorrectly stated they would be awaiting payment having not fulfilled their contractual obligations
8. The defendant, affirms that the plaintiff transferred all assets to the defendant
9. The defendant, affirms that their is a stipulation in the sale agreement that gives a 48 hours period after the initial 48 hours have passed for the defendant to deliver the money with a maximum possible late fee of $1,000.
10. The defendant, affirms that they warned the plaintiff that financing this deal may be a long process that goes beyond the 48 hour period and to reverse the sale if it does.
11. The defendant, affirms that the plaintiff would be willing to waive the late fee if the defendant needed more time, and the asking of the questions of when would the financing be deliver to the defendant and the progress of the defendant securing financing.
12. The defendant, affirms that the defendant had told the plaintiff that he was now able to reverse the sale.
13. The defendant, affirms that the defendant had told the plaintiff that the financing was coming through and that the defendant was willing to continue the deal despite the ability to nullify.
14. The defendant, affirms that the defendant had told the plaintiff that financing was still being delivered.
15. The defendant, affirms that the defendant upon prompted told the plaintiff the truth regarding the financier not responding to the defendant.
16. The defendant, affirms that the defendant told the plaintiff that the defendant planned to list corporate bonds to secure financing
17. The defendant, affirms that that the defendant had informed that they should reverse the sale if financing did not come by December 5th
18. The defendant, affirms that the defendant when prompted by the plaintiff, did not provide a screenshot.
19. The defendant, affirms that the plaintiff had reversed the sale.
20. The defendant, affirms that the defendant had shared the screenshot to the plaintiff after the plaintiff had nullified the sale.
21. The defendant, affirms that the defendant had fulfilled his contractual obligations and delivered the assets and equity to the plaintiff.

II. Defences
To clarify the defense will not recognize any statement from the plaintiff referring to the defendant as he, him, or his as the defense is the LeafLuxury Limited Liability Company not an individual. The reason the defendant brings this up is to avoid confusion, additionally what makes the defendant bring this up is in the plaintiff’s claims for relief “the Defendant entered into a contract that he knew he”

1. The defendant did not knowingly enter a contract the defendant could not pay for and did not act in bad faith. The defendant had been in contact with multiple financiers regarding financing the deal, many of them had responded back to the defendant however upon further inquiries by the defendant did not respond further. Additionally the defendant had warned and suggested the plaintiff into reversing the sale if the defendant passed the outlined window of time to deliver the payment to the plaintiff. Furthermore the plaintiff had attempted to hide the fact from the defendant that the properties the defendant had been attempting to purchase had outstanding mortgages on them.

2. The plaintiff had spent effectively less than 5 hours of time while the defendant had drafted the entire agreement, conducted questions for the plaintiff and had attempted to secure financing for the deal.

Evidence:
I currently am having technical difficulties submitting evidence however I will submit any relevant exhibits tonight or tomorrow.

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 14th day of Decemeber 2025

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Breach of Procedure

"I currently am having technical difficulties submitting evidence however I will submit any relevant exhibits tonight or tomorrow."
The Defendant having legal qualification should have been aware that he may only submit evidence during the course of discovery and should have requested the PO to give him an extension for his awnser.



Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Perjury

The Defendant did not in fact repeatedly suggest nor warn the Plantiff about reversing the sale immediately over the course of the 4 day time period. He merely informed the Plantiff of his right by saying phrases such as "you can reverse the sale as outlined in the agreement" additionally the Defendant explicitly told the Plantiff "No I’ll let you know if they do by December 5th im going to tell you to reverse the sale".
.



Your Honor, Plantiff's counsel wishes to make a objection to the defense of the Plantiff concealing a mortgage on properties however we are awaiting the Plantiff himself to give us specific information, we ask for a 48 hour continuance on discovery or until we make an objection which ever comes sooner.
 
Last edited:

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Breach of Procedure


The Defendant having legal qualification should have been aware that he may only submit evidence during the course of discovery and should have requested the PO to give him an extension for his awnser.



Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Perjury

The Defendant did not in fact repeatedly suggest nor warn the Plantiff about reversing the sale immediately over the course of the 4 day time period. He merely informed the Plantiff of his right by saying phrases such as "you can reverse the sale as outlined in the agreement" additionally the Defendant explicitly told the Plantiff .



Your Honor, Plantiff's counsel wishes to make a objection to the defense of the Plantiff concealing a mortgage on properties however we are awaiting the Plantiff himself to give us specific information, we ask for a 48 hour continuance on discovery or until we make an objection which ever comes sooner.
Your honor i accidentally misclicked send, the perjury objection is cut off mid sentence may I amend it?
 

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Breach of Procedure


The Defendant having legal qualification should have been aware that he may only submit evidence during the course of discovery and should have requested the PO to give him an extension for his awnser.



Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Perjury

The Defendant did not in fact repeatedly suggest nor warn the Plantiff about reversing the sale immediately over the course of the 4 day time period. He merely informed the Plantiff of his right by saying phrases such as "you can reverse the sale as outlined in the agreement" additionally the Defendant explicitly told the Plantiff .



Your Honor, Plantiff's counsel wishes to make a objection to the defense of the Plantiff concealing a mortgage on properties however we are awaiting the Plantiff himself to give us specific information, we ask for a 48 hour continuance on discovery or until we make an objection which ever comes sooner.
Your honor as I am sure you know according to the rules and procedures thread on the courts forum section discovery ends after 5 days.

Additionally I can provide further evidence to prove my claim that I had told the plaintiff to at they were able to reverse the sale
 

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Breach of Procedure


The Defendant having legal qualification should have been aware that he may only submit evidence during the course of discovery and should have requested the PO to give him an extension for his awnser.


OVERRULED. This is a misapprehension of the Court Rules.


Discovery now open.
Deadline 12/19/25 @ 5pm EST
 

Answer to Complaint



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT



IgnitedTnT (Repersented by Talion & Partners)

Plaintiff


v.



LeafLuxury LLC
Defendant


I. Answer To Complaint
1. The defendant, affirms that the plaintiff offered to sell Torchlight Luxery Properties LLC.
2. The defendant, denies that the plaintiff was honest and truthful to the best of their knowledge about the condition of the company's assets and liabilities.
3. The defendant, affirms that the defendant offered $175,000 for Torchlight Luxery Properties LLC including all of their assets.
4. The defendant, affirms that the plaintiff signed the sale agreement.

5. The defendant, affirms that the defendant signed the sale agreement
6. The defendant, affirms that the plaintiff began transferring all assets and equity over to the defendant.
7. The defendant, affirms that the plaintiff incorrectly stated they would be awaiting payment having not fulfilled their contractual obligations
8. The defendant, affirms that the plaintiff transferred all assets to the defendant
9. The defendant, affirms that their is a stipulation in the sale agreement that gives a 48 hours period after the initial 48 hours have passed for the defendant to deliver the money with a maximum possible late fee of $1,000.
10. The defendant, affirms that they warned the plaintiff that financing this deal may be a long process that goes beyond the 48 hour period and to reverse the sale if it does.
11. The defendant, affirms that the plaintiff would be willing to waive the late fee if the defendant needed more time, and the asking of the questions of when would the financing be deliver to the defendant and the progress of the defendant securing financing.
12. The defendant, affirms that the defendant had told the plaintiff that he was now able to reverse the sale.
13. The defendant, affirms that the defendant had told the plaintiff that the financing was coming through and that the defendant was willing to continue the deal despite the ability to nullify.
14. The defendant, affirms that the defendant had told the plaintiff that financing was still being delivered.
15. The defendant, affirms that the defendant upon prompted told the plaintiff the truth regarding the financier not responding to the defendant.
16. The defendant, affirms that the defendant told the plaintiff that the defendant planned to list corporate bonds to secure financing
17. The defendant, affirms that that the defendant had informed that they should reverse the sale if financing did not come by December 5th
18. The defendant, affirms that the defendant when prompted by the plaintiff, did not provide a screenshot.
19. The defendant, affirms that the plaintiff had reversed the sale.
20. The defendant, affirms that the defendant had shared the screenshot to the plaintiff after the plaintiff had nullified the sale.
21. The defendant, affirms that the defendant had fulfilled his contractual obligations and delivered the assets and equity to the plaintiff.

II. Defences
To clarify the defense will not recognize any statement from the plaintiff referring to the defendant as he, him, or his as the defense is the LeafLuxury Limited Liability Company not an individual. The reason the defendant brings this up is to avoid confusion, additionally what makes the defendant bring this up is in the plaintiff’s claims for relief “the Defendant entered into a contract that he knew he”

1. The defendant did not knowingly enter a contract the defendant could not pay for and did not act in bad faith. The defendant had been in contact with multiple financiers regarding financing the deal, many of them had responded back to the defendant however upon further inquiries by the defendant did not respond further. Additionally the defendant had warned and suggested the plaintiff into reversing the sale if the defendant passed the outlined window of time to deliver the payment to the plaintiff. Furthermore the plaintiff had attempted to hide the fact from the defendant that the properties the defendant had been attempting to purchase had outstanding mortgages on them.

2. The plaintiff had spent effectively less than 5 hours of time while the defendant had drafted the entire agreement, conducted questions for the plaintiff and had attempted to secure financing for the deal.

Evidence:
I currently am having technical difficulties submitting evidence however I will submit any relevant exhibits tonight or tomorrow.

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 14th day of Decemeber 2025

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

The Lender lifted the collateral on the aforementioned properties, may it please the court that a continuance is no longer needed.

 

Attachments

  • loan_0.jpg
    loan_0.jpg
    155.4 KB · Views: 22
  • loan_1.jpg
    loan_1.jpg
    158.8 KB · Views: 20

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

The Lender lifted the collateral on the aforementioned properties, may it please the court that a continuance is no longer needed.


This is not an objection....
 
"Furthermore the plaintiff had attempted to hide the fact from the defendant that the properties the defendant had been attempting to purchase had outstanding mortgages on them."
 

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

The Lender lifted the collateral on the aforementioned properties, may it please the court that a continuance is no longer needed.

OVERRULED.

The Court doesn't comprehend what you're talking about. There are aspects to Perjury that an objection must mention. This fails the basic tenets of that.
 

Answer to Complaint



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT



IgnitedTnT (Repersented by Talion & Partners)

Plaintiff


v.



LeafLuxury LLC
Defendant


I. Answer To Complaint
1. The defendant, affirms that the plaintiff offered to sell Torchlight Luxery Properties LLC.
2. The defendant, denies that the plaintiff was honest and truthful to the best of their knowledge about the condition of the company's assets and liabilities.
3. The defendant, affirms that the defendant offered $175,000 for Torchlight Luxery Properties LLC including all of their assets.
4. The defendant, affirms that the plaintiff signed the sale agreement.

5. The defendant, affirms that the defendant signed the sale agreement
6. The defendant, affirms that the plaintiff began transferring all assets and equity over to the defendant.
7. The defendant, affirms that the plaintiff incorrectly stated they would be awaiting payment having not fulfilled their contractual obligations
8. The defendant, affirms that the plaintiff transferred all assets to the defendant
9. The defendant, affirms that their is a stipulation in the sale agreement that gives a 48 hours period after the initial 48 hours have passed for the defendant to deliver the money with a maximum possible late fee of $1,000.
10. The defendant, affirms that they warned the plaintiff that financing this deal may be a long process that goes beyond the 48 hour period and to reverse the sale if it does.
11. The defendant, affirms that the plaintiff would be willing to waive the late fee if the defendant needed more time, and the asking of the questions of when would the financing be deliver to the defendant and the progress of the defendant securing financing.
12. The defendant, affirms that the defendant had told the plaintiff that he was now able to reverse the sale.
13. The defendant, affirms that the defendant had told the plaintiff that the financing was coming through and that the defendant was willing to continue the deal despite the ability to nullify.
14. The defendant, affirms that the defendant had told the plaintiff that financing was still being delivered.
15. The defendant, affirms that the defendant upon prompted told the plaintiff the truth regarding the financier not responding to the defendant.
16. The defendant, affirms that the defendant told the plaintiff that the defendant planned to list corporate bonds to secure financing
17. The defendant, affirms that that the defendant had informed that they should reverse the sale if financing did not come by December 5th
18. The defendant, affirms that the defendant when prompted by the plaintiff, did not provide a screenshot.
19. The defendant, affirms that the plaintiff had reversed the sale.
20. The defendant, affirms that the defendant had shared the screenshot to the plaintiff after the plaintiff had nullified the sale.
21. The defendant, affirms that the defendant had fulfilled his contractual obligations and delivered the assets and equity to the plaintiff.

II. Defences
To clarify the defense will not recognize any statement from the plaintiff referring to the defendant as he, him, or his as the defense is the LeafLuxury Limited Liability Company not an individual. The reason the defendant brings this up is to avoid confusion, additionally what makes the defendant bring this up is in the plaintiff’s claims for relief “the Defendant entered into a contract that he knew he”

1. The defendant did not knowingly enter a contract the defendant could not pay for and did not act in bad faith. The defendant had been in contact with multiple financiers regarding financing the deal, many of them had responded back to the defendant however upon further inquiries by the defendant did not respond further. Additionally the defendant had warned and suggested the plaintiff into reversing the sale if the defendant passed the outlined window of time to deliver the payment to the plaintiff. Furthermore the plaintiff had attempted to hide the fact from the defendant that the properties the defendant had been attempting to purchase had outstanding mortgages on them.

2. The plaintiff had spent effectively less than 5 hours of time while the defendant had drafted the entire agreement, conducted questions for the plaintiff and had attempted to secure financing for the deal.

Evidence:
I currently am having technical difficulties submitting evidence however I will submit any relevant exhibits tonight or tomorrow.

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 14th day of Decemeber 2025

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

The Plantiff did not attempt to hide mortages on properties owned by Torchlight LLC, "There's a mortgage on two of the properties, but the sale price we agreed upon for the company (which includes the assets) cover my mortgages, so you should not worryabout this. Those loans are registered to my personal name and not the company" (P-001)

 

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

The Plantiff did not attempt to hide mortages on properties owned by Torchlight LLC, "There's a mortgage on two of the properties, but the sale price we agreed upon for the company (which includes the assets) cover my mortgages, so you should not worryabout this. Those loans are registered to my personal name and not the company" (P-001)

That’s not what I said. I wasn’t arguing who owned the liability I was arguing that the plaintiff had not disclosed mortgage on the property. This constitutes the defendant not being entirely truthful about the company’s assets’ conditions as the property that had a mortgage on it was owned by the company and the mortgage was not disclosed.
 

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

The Plantiff did not attempt to hide mortages on properties owned by Torchlight LLC, "There's a mortgage on two of the properties, but the sale price we agreed upon for the company (which includes the assets) cover my mortgages, so you should not worryabout this. Those loans are registered to my personal name and not the company" (P-001)

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The plaintiff had already objected on the same ground and the presiding judge had already made a ruling on it. If the plaintiff wanted to object on the same grounds they would need to motion for reconsider which they have not done.

 

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

The Plantiff moves to compel the Defense on the conversations the Defendant had with the financiers mentioned in their answer.

 

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

The Plantiff moves to compel the Defense on the conversations the Defendant had with the financiers mentioned in their answer.

We are planning to submit them as evidence and call them as witnesses
 
Defense's Exhibits
Screenshot (775).png
Screenshot (776).png
Screenshot (778).png
Screenshot (777).png
 
Interrogatory to the Defense:
Were any of these financiers under contractual obligation to loan to you?
 

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The plaintiff had already objected on the same ground and the presiding judge had already made a ruling on it. If the plaintiff wanted to object on the same grounds they would need to motion for reconsider which they have not done.

Response

The 2 objections are fundamentally different in nature and the presiding officer only ruled that the first lacked the necessary qualifications to be a perjury objection

 

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
Objection - Relevance

LeafLuxery LLC did not seek a loan for a company acquisition, Mr. Riggo as a private individual did.

Multiple issues are with this objection, first the defendant is not LeafLuxery LLC it is LeafLuxury LLC I do not know where the plaintiff has came up with that name.The financier said they may only give out personal loans however I did not accept or state that this would be a personal loan as obvious in the message with them the stated reason was for purchasing a company. Additionally by messaging them I was acting in an official capacity for the defendant (LeafLuxury LLC).
 
Multiple issues are with this objection, first the defendant is not LeafLuxery LLC it is LeafLuxury LLC I do not know where the plaintiff has came up with that name.The financier said they may only give out personal loans however I did not accept or state that this would be a personal loan as obvious in the message with them the stated reason was for purchasing a company. Additionally by messaging them I was acting in an official capacity for the defendant (LeafLuxury LLC).
All parties should be aware that Elysia has been co-counsel for the Plaintiff. Elysia nor anyone else knew that the acquisition loan was in regard to Torchlight, we were going to wait to see if she was going to be called in as a witness before making this announcement but as facts are now in dispute that pertain to her she has been temporarily taken off this case pending this court’s approval or clarification.
 
All parties should be aware that Elysia has been co-counsel for the Plaintiff. Elysia nor anyone else knew that the acquisition loan was in regard to Torchlight, we were going to wait to see if she was going to be called in as a witness before making this announcement but as facts are now in dispute that pertain to her she has been temporarily taken off this case pending this court’s approval or clarification.
You can see clearly in the evidence we say the loan is for purchasing a company so then she must have not read our messages
 
@RiggoSoft @BlueRiverOtter

This case thread isn't a place for conversation. If a party is misquoting you or not following your viewpoint, that goes into an argument or an objection.
 
You can see clearly in the evidence we say the loan is for purchasing a company so then she must have not read our messages

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
Objection - Breach of Procedure

Defendant has spoken out of turn.

 

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
Objection - Relevance

LeafLuxery LLC did not seek a loan for a company acquisition, Mr. Riggo as a private individual did.


Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

The defendant had been acting in an official capacity for LeafLuxury LLC to secure a loan to acquire Torchlight Luxery Properties as made clear with the defendant's exhibit D-05.

 

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

The defendant had been acting in an official capacity for LeafLuxury LLC to secure a loan to acquire Torchlight Luxery Properties as made clear with the defendant's exhibit D-05.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
Objection - Ambigous

The Plaintiff is unsure of what the Defendant is objecting to.

 

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

The defendant had been acting in an official capacity for LeafLuxury LLC to secure a loan to acquire Torchlight Luxery Properties as made clear with the defendant's exhibit D-05.


Court disregards this filing. No argument nor basis of perjury established.
 

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
Objection - Ambigous

The Plaintiff is unsure of what the Defendant is objecting to.


Disregarded, incorrect use of Objection -Ambiguous.
 
Back
Top