CreeperTD
Citizen
Public Defender
BAR Chairperson
BAR Councillor
Supporter
CreeperTD
Executive Advisor
- Joined
- May 24, 2026
- Messages
- 530
- Thread Author
- #1
Case Filing
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
IgnitedTNT (represented by Theory, Talion & Partners Inc.)
Plaintiff
v.
SingeHeart, Addams and Associates
Defendant
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
I. PARTIES
1. IgnitedTNT (Plaintiff)
2. SingeHeart, Addams and Associates (Defendant)
II. FACTS
1. On July 17, 2026, then CEO of Usergroup, Culls, was permanently deported by staff. (P-012)
2. On July 26, an eviction report was filed against Culls for the property C675, with reason “Inactivity… Player banned or deported,” with the action date being set for August 10. The Plot was contractually given to the corporation Usergroup, of which IgnitedTNT is, at the time of filing, the sole shareholder of. (P-013, P-006, P-010, P-011)
3. On August 12 at 4:49 PM CDT, Sam07x posted in Usergroup’s company docket that they had transferred all of their shares to IgnitedTNT. This was later confirmed by an updated member register in the company docket (P-014)
4. Having theretofore been representing the previous owner of the shares, Sam07x, the employees of Defendant SingeHeart, Addams and Associates (“SHAA”) were informed of a change in ownership by the Plaintiff the same day the change took place, and SHAA told the Plaintiff that the case would now have to be refiled. The Plaintiff shared the same goal as Sam07x with the to-be refiled lawsuit: to obtain the plots held by Culls before they were seized by the DCT. The Defendant didn’t provide an adequate response agreeing to file a civil action until August 20th, 8 days after they were first informed of the need to refile. The Plaintiff paid $1000 for this refiling on August 24th (P-015, P-016, P-017, P-001)
5. On August 31st at 8:52 PM GMT+2, the employee that had been handling all of the Plaintiff’s requests, SteelRains, informed the Plaintiff that he had gone on LOA. Despite multiple requests for urgent assistance, and the previous case having been withdrawn by SteelRains on August 26th, no response was given to the Plaintiff by the Defendant until September 1st at 11:39 PM GMT+2. The eviction report was left to be executed without any pending litigation for 7 calendar days. (P-018, Sam07x v. Culls [2026] FCR 68, Sam07x v. Culls [2026])
6. After Desertstorm49 responded to the ticket, Plaintiff informed her of the urgency of the situation, and explained to her what was required. Plaintiff also showed Desertstorm49 the lawsuit that was filed by SteelRains. The Plaintiff authorized Desertstorm49 in the matter, placing his trust in her. (P-002, P-003)
7. As of September 15, 2026 at 9:51 PM CDT, the Desertstorm49 is licensed as a Barrister. (P-024)
8. Desertstorm49 filed a case titled “Sam07x v. Culls [2026]” in the District Court of Redmont on September 2nd at 10:31 AM CDT, whose text is identical to the case filed by SteelRains before other than the parties listed at the top of the filing, the written statement, and much poorer formatting. (Sam07x v. Culls [2026])
9. The Plaintiff informed Desertstorm49 of the filing’s defects, and although she apologized, she at no point remedied the defects in the complaint that was filed in court. (P-004, Sam07x v. Culls [2026])
10. On September 3 at 10:08 PM EST, Desertstorm49 stated to the court that “I would like to notify the court that the client has gone to a different firm and I will no longer be pursuing this case.” At no point did the Plaintiff ever state in his ticket with SHAA that he wished to withdraw the lawsuit, or that he was seeking other legal counsel. (P-005, P-019)
11. The plot C675 was seized by the government on September 1, and is currently pending auction. (P-020)
12. At the time of filing, Desertstorm49 is employed by the Defendant with the job title “DC Branch Head.” (P-023)
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Negligence (General) RCCA Part XIII § 3)
The Redmont Civil Code Act plainly states what must occur for one to commit the violation of Negligence:
Singeheart, Addams and Associates is a law firm in Redmont which represents itself as the commonwealth’s largest law firm, and their server openly displays many reviews from clients, with a vast majority of them being 10/10 reviews, representing to their clients through both those reviews and their advertisements that they are dependable, fast, and trustworthy (P-021, P-022). The clients that come to SHAA are there because they require the assistance of legal professionals to help them with matters that they often have a limited understanding of. Because of this, and the extent to which clients rely on their legal representatives to guide them through the complex system of laws and to represent their interests, it is imperative that lawyers and law firms are held to the highest standards for the sake of client protection. The Defendant breached this trust to the highest degree through sheer neglect. For one, the firm left the Plaintiff in the dark throughout his dealings with them, leaving questions unanswered for days, and took 21 days from the time when Plaintiff informed the Defendant of the need to refile to actually do so, all while a very urgent deadline had already passed by. Not only that, but, as stated in the facts of this complaint, the Defendant left the plot, C675, without any legal protection for 7 calendar days, during which the DCT seized ownership of the plot. This is an outrageous delay that is entirely unreasonable, regardless of any circumstances going on at the firm. The BAR Legal Code of Conduct states that “A lawyer shall advise and represent the client promptly and with intent. A lawyer shall take on responsibility to enact on their clients instructions and should keep the client informed as to the progress of the matter.” This is a key authority to keep in mind, as the BAR sets professional standards for the legal profession; guidelines set out by the BAR can be considered the “standard of care expected of a reasonable professional in their field,” (RCCA Part IX § 2), which law firms should be held to by the courts of Redmont. This is a duty of care that was clearly breached by the Defendant, meeting requirements (a) and (b) for the violation.
As previously stated, the actions of the Defendant left the Plaintiff open to harm for 7 calendar days, that harm being the seizure of C675, and that harm did in fact occur on September 1st. The negligence of the Defendant directly caused the loss of the plot due to government seizure for the Plaintiff, and has made it unlikely for them to regain ownership of that plot without purchasing it at auction, despite it being legally theirs. This fulfills requirements (c) and (d). Furthermore, because the law firm employs Desertstorm49, who engaged in malpractice (as outlined elsewhere), and had a responsibility to oversee their work, they are wholly liable for their actions as well, seeing as the firm’s failure to properly supervise a Barrister in their legal practice arguably led to the damages that occurred. The Commerical Standards Act, which was in effect at the time of the incident, explicitly provides for this transfer of liability in two ways in § 6(2-3):
As will be shown through the course of the trial, the Defendant failed to provide adequate training, or really, any training at all, to Barrister Desertstorm49. They don’t have a well organized discord server to allow for the individual management and supervision of employees, no policies outlining expected conduct, and no system of review before any employees, even the most inexperienced solicitor, provide services to a client. This lack of oversight and management is made clear by the fact that the firm rewarded Desertstorm49 after this incident, making them the acting “DC Branch Head” around September 9th (P-023). The firm has also continued to assign a majority of its cases to the Defendant, all of which have been of subpar quality (see RavenReap v. BrutalByteMC [2026] DCR, TheRealDarklander v. The Town of Oakridge et al. [2026] DCR 160, Lawsuit: Dismissed - Orbb_1215 vs. SuperWoops [2026] DCR 158).
2. Malpractice (RCCA Part IX § 2)
Desertstorm49 entirely failed to follow the standard duty of care expected of her. The BAR Legal Code of Conduct, under the subheading Client Relations, enshrines that: “A lawyer shall not handle a matter in which the lawyer knows they are not competent to handle, without cooperating with a lawyer who is.” RCCA Part IX § 2 clearly defines the civil violation of Malpractice:
Desertstorm49 was legally qualified as a Barrister, a legal professional, and clearly breached the standard of care required of someone in her field. As stated before, the BAR legal code of conduct is a qualified authority on the standard of care expected of legal professionals. Part II § 1(2-3) of the BAR Act states:
Given that the act which created the BAR describes it as “the exclusive body regulating the legal field in Redmont,” its policies can be understood to be the generally accepted “standard of care expected of a reasonable professional in their field” as described by the RCCA. Desertstorm49 displayed clear incompetence through her conduct throughout the case, including but not limited to posting a complaint entirely copy and pasted from another lawyer’s work without even reviewing its contents. Without a doubt, her actions constitute a breach of requirement (a).
Because of the deficient nature of Desertstorm49’s work, the Plaintiff was ultimately forced to seek a new law firm and to nolle prosequi the filed case. Having paid $1000 for the Defendant’s work, and having relied on it to take ownership of a plot that was legally his, the Plaintiff ultimately lost both assets without any gain as a result of the Barrister’s Conduct. This meets requirement (b).
As stated above, as the business which employs Desertstorm49, Defendant SHAA is able to be held entirely liable for the conduct of the Barrister. The Commercial Standards Act explicitly allows for an employer to be held liable for an employee’s conduct, albeit in one specific instance (CSA § 6(3)(a)). The courts of Redmont have, however, held that legal entities can be held liable for the actions of individuals who acted as agents of a legal entity. In YeetGlazer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 76, the court found that the Commonwealth was liable for the actions of one of its agents, dearev, writing that:
Even though this case concerned a governmental entity, the legal principles of liability are able to be applied to this case. When the Defendant allowed their employee, Desertstorm49, to represent a client under its name, they entrusted her with a great responsibility, that of representing a client’s legal interests. There are extensive ethical and legal rules and regulations which exist solely for the protection of clients when they, in an often vulnerable, confused state, seek legal services from legal practitioners. A lack of oversight, which will be shown to this court through the course of discovery and future witness testimony, was directly responsible for the harm caused to the Plaintiff, and Desertstorm49’s actions only were able to occur because of a lack of oversight. The Barrister’s creation of a complaint so incompetent that it was actively harmful to the Plaintiff, the firm’s delay in making the correct filings without any notice, apology, or refund, and the attempt by the Barrister to remove a case from the court without her client’s permission are all examples of substantially harmful conduct that breached the duty of care expected of all those in the legal profession, and as such the Defendant must be found liable for these actions.
3. Punitive Damages (RCCA Part III § 3)
The Redmont Civil Code Act authorizes Punitive Damages for “outrageous conduct.” It also states in Part III § 3(2)(iv)that conduct can be considered outrageous when “the conduct demonstrates gross negligence, being such a significant departure from the standard of care that it warrants punishment rather than compensation alone.” As previously outlined, the negligence displayed by the Defendant was extensive. Not only did Defendant’s actions allow for a plot at the center of the client’s legal matter to be seized by the government, but left the plot without any legal protection from having a pending emergency injunction for 7 calendar days. Once the Defendant finally filed a suit, the employee, the Defendant, did such an atrocious job that it would have been better if the lawsuit had not been filed in the first place. Those more qualified than the Defendant that worked for Defendant failed to intervene or supervise the Defendant’s work at any stage, leading to the malpractice which resulted. Although the firm cannot be held directly responsible for the Defendant’s Malpractice, they had a duty of care to prevent or at least mitigate the harm done by the Defendant, and their negligence is unacceptable in the legal field. For a firm that wishes to be the premier law firm in Redmont, this sort of behavior must be punished beyond a compensatory remedy, but with punitive damages as well, to establish that such negligence cannot ever be acceptable in Redmont.
4. Humiliation (RCCA Part III § 5)
Lawsuits filed in the courts of Redmont are visible to all citizens, and actions taken during the course of proceedings are often commented upon by individuals uninvolved in the lawsuit itself. IgnitedTNT is a well known member of the community, currently serving as an Executive Advisor. Therefore, when the law firm failed so spectacularly in filing the lawsuit requested by the Plaintiff, it was in view of the general public, and it humiliated Plaintiff to have hired such incompetent legal representation. The case filing was belittled in #legal by various individuals, including well-respected lawyers (P-025). RCCA Part III § 5(1)(a)(i) defines humiliation as “Situations in which a person has been disgraced, belittled[,] or made to look foolish.” Arguably, the case filing made the Plaintiff look foolish to the public eye because of them having apparently hired a very inexperienced, incompetent lawyer to take on their case, presumably for a large sum of money, given their reputation for being wealthy. IgnitedTNT, as an Executive Advisor, is often in the public eye, and as such any actions they are involved in are subject to increased public interest compared to others. This humiliation is wholly separate from the pecuniary loss incurred by the Plaintiff as a result of the Defendant’s conduct, and as such this court should reward Consequential damages to the Plaintiff.
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following relief from the Defendant:
1. 100 Civil Penalty Units for Malpractice (RCCA Part IX § 2)
2. $101,000 in Compensatory Damages for Negligence, equivalent to the amount paid for the legal services, and an approximate valuation of plot C675 (RCCA Part III § 2)
3. Punitive damages amounting to $50,000 for gross negligence (RCCA Part III § 3)
4. Consequential Damages for Humiliation amounting to $40,000 (RCCA Part III § 5)
5. Legal fees amounting to 30% of the total damages awarded, payable to Theory, Talion & Partners Inc.
Total Primary Claim: $191,000 plus up to 100 Civil Penalty Units ($12,000) plus up to $60,900 in legal fees.
V. EVIDENCE
NOTE: A majority of evidence taken from the Plaintiff’s ticket within the Defendant’s server is to be read from bottom to top.
P-001: SHAA Engagement and Payment
P-002: Client's Instructions Regarding Emergency Injunction
P-003: Client's Authorization
P-004: Defective Filing Identified by Client & Defendant’s Response to Copying Allegation
P-005: Case Rescinding without Client's Approval
P-006: Sale Agreement - Culls Legal Services - Usermart 1-10 (attached below due to forum weirdness)
P-007: Vault Notification
P-008: Additional proof of Eviction
P-009: Additional Proof of Ownership, 1
P-010: Additional Proof of Ownership, 2
P-011: Additional Proof of Ownership, 3
P-012: Culls Punishment History
P-013: Eviction Report on plot C675 https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/c675-aug-10-2026.41662/
P-014: Screenshot of and link to the post of the transfer of shares from Sam07x to IgnitedTNT https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/usergroup-inc.34955/#post-166391
P-015: Plaintiff informing an employee of the Defendant of the change in ownership, and subsequent responses
P-016:
P-017:
P-018: Employee of Defendant SHAA informing Plaintiff of a LOA, and the subsequent response of Defendant Desertstorm49.
P-019: End of the exchange in the ticket made by Plaintiff in Defendant’s discord server
P-020: Link to eviction thread stating that ownership of the plot was transferred to the government
P-021:
P-022: Defendant’s #businesses post in the main DC discord server
P-023: Manager/direction of Defendant announcing a promotion of Desertstorm49 after the incident
P-024: Legal qualifications held by Defendant
P-025: Commentary Surrounding the case filed by Desertstorm49
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 September 2026.