- Joined
- May 27, 2026
- Messages
- 9
- Thread Author
- #1
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
Maks3kk0x
Plaintiff
v.
Alexotto09
Defendant
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
At around 10 P.M. CST, the Plaintiff, Maks3kk0x was in the Commonwealth of Redmont. The Plaintiff received a direct message from the Defendant, Alexotto09, about a transaction involving an Elytra. The Defendant offered a price of $999 in Redmont currency (P-001). Notably, the cheapest Elytra on the market at the moment was selling for just under $1,500 Redmont currency. The Plaintiff, seeing a bargain, agreed to the price laid out by the Defendant.
The Plaintiff suggested to the Defendant that the Plaintiff would set up a “chest shop”, which is an in-game system that allows transactions to occur without risk of fraudulent behavior. However, the Defendant would not accept this deal and insisted on a two-part trade in which the Plaintiff would have to pay first before the Defendant would drop the aforementioned Elytra (P-002 and P-003). This immediately brought up suspicion from the Plaintiff, however the Plaintiff believed he could trust a citizen of the Commonwealth of Redmont to not engage in such outrageous conduct.
The Plaintiff and Defendant traveled to the region of Aventura where the transaction was to take place (P-004). The Plaintiff then proceeded to pay the Defendant the agreed-upon amount: $999. This was done using the /pay command (P-005). However, the Defendant did not hold up on their side of the deal. Instead of throwing the Elytra to the Plaintiff, the Defendant pulled out a firearm (an illegal Spas-12) and held it at the face of the Plaintiff. The Defendant stood still with the firearm in hand for a time period between five and ten seconds without shooting. This was likely either a threat, or potentially the Defendant did not understand how to properly operate the firearm. Whatever the case, after the five to ten second period elapsed, the Defendant proceeded to equip the Elytra that was supposed to be given to the Plaintiff. The Defendant then used said Elytra to leave the interaction, thereby taking $999 from the Plaintiff without providing their end of the verbal agreement.
I. PARTIES
1. Maks3kk0x, Plaintiff.
2. Alexotto09, Defendant.
II. FACTS
1. The Plaintiff was in the Commonwealth of Redmont at around 10 P.M. Central Time.
2. The Plaintiff received a direct message from the Defendant describing that they would sell an Elytra to the Plaintiff for $999 Redmont currency.
3. The Plaintiff agreed to this verbal contract and inquired about the transaction via a chest shop.
4. The Defendant denied the Plaintiff’s request to use the chest shop, and instead insisted on a two-part transaction involving the /pay feature.
5. The Plaintiff agreed to the Defendant’s terms.
6. The Plaintiff and the Defendant met together in the fishing town of Aventura.
7. The Plaintiff used the /pay command to give the Defendant $999 Redmont currency.
8. The Defendant held a firearm in their hand for roughly five to ten seconds.
9. The Defendant equipped the Elytra that was supposed to be their side of the transaction.
10. The Defendant flew away from the Plaintiff using the Elytra.
11. The Defendant walked away with $999 Redmont currency and the Elytra, thereby scamming the Plaintiff.
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
CLAIM I: THEFT - Criminal Code Act
1. The Criminal Code Act defines Theft as when a person or legal entity takes property belonging to another without consent; and intends to permanently deprive the owner of it, or use it without authorization.
2. The conduct of the Defendant fulfills this definition because the Defendant took $999 Redmont currency from the Plaintiff without their consent.
3. Due to the Defendant holding a gun at the Plaintiff, the Defendant clearly intended to permanently deprive the Plaintiff of the aforementioned property permanently.
4. The Defendant’s conduct does not fall under the exception that the taker reasonably believed they had the owner’s consent due to them making a verbal agreement of how the trade would go and them attempting to escape and threaten the Plaintiff after successfully finessing the $999 Redmont currency.
5. The Law of Redmont states that civil damages can be seeked due to crimes, and declares that crimes do not need to result in criminal prosecution for civil damages to be received.
CLAIM II: BREACH OF CONTRACT - Redmont Civil Code Act
1. The Contracts Act describes how in order for a contract to be formed, it must contain an offer, acceptance, consideration, intent, and capacity.
2. The verbal agreement that was made between the Plaintiff and the Defendant constitutes as a contract due to it meeting all the necessary conditions:
4. A breach of contract occurs when a party fails to fulfil its contractual obligations.
5. The contractual obligation of the Defendant was to give one Elytra to the Defendant, however the Defendant refused to complete their contractual obligation, thereby causing a Breach of Contract.
CLAIM III: COMPENSATORY DAMAGES - Redmont Civil Code Act
1. The Defendant took an unauthorized $999 Redmont currency from the Plaintiff.
2. The Plaintiff seeks $999 in Compensatory Damages for the theft of an equal amount from the Plaintiff.
CLAIM IV: PUNITIVE DAMAGES - Redmont Civil Code Act
1. Punitive damages are damages awarded against a person for outrageous conduct and to deter them from said conduct in the future.
2. Outrageous conduct is defined as a substantial departure from acceptable standards of behavior which includes behavior that reflects dishonesty. The Defendant’s conduct clearly reflected dishonest behavior.
3. The Civil Code Act describes the standards that are required to be met for something to be considered outrageous conduct. The Defendant’s conduct met the following standards:
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $999 in compensatory damages due to $999 of Redmont currency being stolen from the Plaintiff
2. $5,000 in punitive damages due to outrageous conduct and to deter the Defendant from similar conduct in the future
Total: $5,999
V. EVIDENCE
VI. REPRESENTATION
The Plaintiff, Maks3kk0x, has agreed to be represented in this case by Summit Law, more specifically Barrister LeonardoDevinci. A signed contract and proof of signature is attached below (P-006, P-007).
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 12th day of June, 2026
CIVIL ACTION
Maks3kk0x
Plaintiff
v.
Alexotto09
Defendant
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
At around 10 P.M. CST, the Plaintiff, Maks3kk0x was in the Commonwealth of Redmont. The Plaintiff received a direct message from the Defendant, Alexotto09, about a transaction involving an Elytra. The Defendant offered a price of $999 in Redmont currency (P-001). Notably, the cheapest Elytra on the market at the moment was selling for just under $1,500 Redmont currency. The Plaintiff, seeing a bargain, agreed to the price laid out by the Defendant.
The Plaintiff suggested to the Defendant that the Plaintiff would set up a “chest shop”, which is an in-game system that allows transactions to occur without risk of fraudulent behavior. However, the Defendant would not accept this deal and insisted on a two-part trade in which the Plaintiff would have to pay first before the Defendant would drop the aforementioned Elytra (P-002 and P-003). This immediately brought up suspicion from the Plaintiff, however the Plaintiff believed he could trust a citizen of the Commonwealth of Redmont to not engage in such outrageous conduct.
The Plaintiff and Defendant traveled to the region of Aventura where the transaction was to take place (P-004). The Plaintiff then proceeded to pay the Defendant the agreed-upon amount: $999. This was done using the /pay command (P-005). However, the Defendant did not hold up on their side of the deal. Instead of throwing the Elytra to the Plaintiff, the Defendant pulled out a firearm (an illegal Spas-12) and held it at the face of the Plaintiff. The Defendant stood still with the firearm in hand for a time period between five and ten seconds without shooting. This was likely either a threat, or potentially the Defendant did not understand how to properly operate the firearm. Whatever the case, after the five to ten second period elapsed, the Defendant proceeded to equip the Elytra that was supposed to be given to the Plaintiff. The Defendant then used said Elytra to leave the interaction, thereby taking $999 from the Plaintiff without providing their end of the verbal agreement.
I. PARTIES
1. Maks3kk0x, Plaintiff.
2. Alexotto09, Defendant.
II. FACTS
1. The Plaintiff was in the Commonwealth of Redmont at around 10 P.M. Central Time.
2. The Plaintiff received a direct message from the Defendant describing that they would sell an Elytra to the Plaintiff for $999 Redmont currency.
3. The Plaintiff agreed to this verbal contract and inquired about the transaction via a chest shop.
4. The Defendant denied the Plaintiff’s request to use the chest shop, and instead insisted on a two-part transaction involving the /pay feature.
5. The Plaintiff agreed to the Defendant’s terms.
6. The Plaintiff and the Defendant met together in the fishing town of Aventura.
7. The Plaintiff used the /pay command to give the Defendant $999 Redmont currency.
8. The Defendant held a firearm in their hand for roughly five to ten seconds.
9. The Defendant equipped the Elytra that was supposed to be their side of the transaction.
10. The Defendant flew away from the Plaintiff using the Elytra.
11. The Defendant walked away with $999 Redmont currency and the Elytra, thereby scamming the Plaintiff.
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
CLAIM I: THEFT - Criminal Code Act
1. The Criminal Code Act defines Theft as when a person or legal entity takes property belonging to another without consent; and intends to permanently deprive the owner of it, or use it without authorization.
2. The conduct of the Defendant fulfills this definition because the Defendant took $999 Redmont currency from the Plaintiff without their consent.
3. Due to the Defendant holding a gun at the Plaintiff, the Defendant clearly intended to permanently deprive the Plaintiff of the aforementioned property permanently.
4. The Defendant’s conduct does not fall under the exception that the taker reasonably believed they had the owner’s consent due to them making a verbal agreement of how the trade would go and them attempting to escape and threaten the Plaintiff after successfully finessing the $999 Redmont currency.
5. The Law of Redmont states that civil damages can be seeked due to crimes, and declares that crimes do not need to result in criminal prosecution for civil damages to be received.
CLAIM II: BREACH OF CONTRACT - Redmont Civil Code Act
1. The Contracts Act describes how in order for a contract to be formed, it must contain an offer, acceptance, consideration, intent, and capacity.
2. The verbal agreement that was made between the Plaintiff and the Defendant constitutes as a contract due to it meeting all the necessary conditions:
- Offer: The Defendant explicitly asks the Plaintiff if they would like to purchase an item, thereby stating their willingness to partake in the verbal contract (P-001).
- Acceptance: The Plaintiff clearly replies with the word “sure” and begins discussing the details of the transaction. The Plaintiff showed their acceptance of the contract in two ways: by replying with an explicit “sure” as well as continuing the conversation in a manner that can only be defined as acceptance.
- Consideration: The contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant had consideration as both parties intended to provide value of some kind. The Plaintiff intended on providing monetary value ($999 Redmont currency) and the Defendant intended on providing a tangible item as sufficient repayment.
- Intent: Both parties had clearly shown intent to initiate the transaction, as they met up together in the town of Aventura and one side provided their contractual obligation.
- Capacity: Both parties clearly had the capacity to enter into the contract, as there are no previous requirements that would forbid either party from fulfilling their contractual obligations. Receiving Redmont currency does not have a set, hard-coded requirement for playtime, and neither does obtaining an Elytra.
4. A breach of contract occurs when a party fails to fulfil its contractual obligations.
5. The contractual obligation of the Defendant was to give one Elytra to the Defendant, however the Defendant refused to complete their contractual obligation, thereby causing a Breach of Contract.
CLAIM III: COMPENSATORY DAMAGES - Redmont Civil Code Act
1. The Defendant took an unauthorized $999 Redmont currency from the Plaintiff.
2. The Plaintiff seeks $999 in Compensatory Damages for the theft of an equal amount from the Plaintiff.
CLAIM IV: PUNITIVE DAMAGES - Redmont Civil Code Act
1. Punitive damages are damages awarded against a person for outrageous conduct and to deter them from said conduct in the future.
2. Outrageous conduct is defined as a substantial departure from acceptable standards of behavior which includes behavior that reflects dishonesty. The Defendant’s conduct clearly reflected dishonest behavior.
3. The Civil Code Act describes the standards that are required to be met for something to be considered outrageous conduct. The Defendant’s conduct met the following standards:
- The Defendant intended to cause harm or loss: The Defendant knew what they were doing and understood the amount of loss it would cause the Plaintiff, however, they continued in their conduct.
- The Defendant acted knowing that their conduct was likely to disadvantage another person: The Defendant’s actions resulted in a disadvantage for the Plaintiff due to them losing a substantial chunk of wealth.
- The conduct involved dishonesty, deception, bad faith, or abuse of trust: The Defendant’s conduct met all four of the aforementioned requirements. The Defendant used deception and dishonesty to Breach the verbal contract made between the Defendant and the Plaintiff, thereby abusing the Plaintiff’s trust.
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $999 in compensatory damages due to $999 of Redmont currency being stolen from the Plaintiff
2. $5,000 in punitive damages due to outrageous conduct and to deter the Defendant from similar conduct in the future
Total: $5,999
V. EVIDENCE
- P-001: The Defendant offers to sell the Plaintiff an Elytra for $999 and the Plaintiff agrees.
- P-002: The Plaintiff offers to create a chestshop in order to avoid the risk of fraud from a two-part transaction.
- P-003: The Defendant denies the request of using a fraud-free transaction and instead insists on creating a two-part transaction involving /pay.
- P-004: The Defendant and Plaintiff meet at the Spawn of Aventura.
- P-005: The Plaintiff pays the Defendant $999 Redmont currency.
- P-006: A signed contract proving Summit Law will defend the Plaintiff in court.
- P-007: Proof that the Plaintiff allowed me to sign the aforementioned contract in his name.
VI. REPRESENTATION
The Plaintiff, Maks3kk0x, has agreed to be represented in this case by Summit Law, more specifically Barrister LeonardoDevinci. A signed contract and proof of signature is attached below (P-006, P-007).
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 12th day of June, 2026
Last edited:
