Lawsuit: Pending MC20masarati v. The Exchange [2025] FCR 56

[undatheradar]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

MC20masarati
Plaintiff

v.

The Exchange
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On June 3rd, 2025, the emergency asset freeze previously in effect was partially lifted, specifically unfreezing my holdings within The Exchange. At this time, only my bank balances and stock positions remain restricted, not liquid funds stored in a securities institution. Nonetheless, The Exchange blatantly ignored this and refuses to unfreeze my money.

I. PARTIES
1. MC20masarati (Plaintiff)
2. The Exchange (Defendant)
3. Stoppers (Agent of the Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. On June 3rd, 2025, a motion to reconsider was filed and partially granted in fluffywaafelz v. MC20masarati, modifying the injunction such that only bank accounts would remain frozen, and that stock holdings could not be sold or traded.
2. Following that ruling, I contacted Stoppers, the owner of The Exchange, and requested that my funds be unfrozen and a $1,000,000 withdrawal be processed (see Exhibit P-001). This was intended to allow for regular business operations in-game and to protect my assets in the event of a market collapse (see Exhibit P-002).
3. Stoppers declined the request and stated that I should bring the matter back before the Court (see Exhibit P-003).

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Under the Commercial Standards Act, The Exchange qualifies as a “Stock Exchange,” and is not classified as a “bank.” Despite this, The Exchange is currently withholding $1,031,450.37 that legally belongs to me, and continues to do so in defiance of a court order that no longer justifies such action. This constitutes an unlawful retention of assets.
2. Embezzlement is defined as the deliberate withholding of assets for the purpose of converting them, by someone entrusted with their care, for personal benefit. My funds were entrusted to The Exchange. While financial institutions may lawfully move funds during normal operations, that behavior becomes illegal when it involves knowingly withholding a customer’s assets following the expiration of legal justification. That is the situation here.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $1,031,450.37 in compensatory damages—the amount held and not returned despite a clear withdrawal request.
2. $100,000 in punitive damages for willfully retaining funds after being informed that the injunction no longer applied. A financial institution of this size is expected to understand its legal obligations.
3. $50,000 in consequential damages due to the negative impact on my quality of life and enjoyment of Redmont caused by the unlawful denial of access to my funds.

V. EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
I request that the Court immediately order The Exchange to release and return my liquid funds. The Exchange has no legal interest or standing to continue holding my money.

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

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 4th day of June 2025

 

[ToadKing]

May it please the court, I wish to file an Amicus brief regarding the Plaintiffs ability to file cases relating to Corporate and Administrative law, with respect to their currently held Barrister specializations.

 

[ko531]

Writ of Summons

@Stoppers is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Mc20masarati v. The Exchange [2025] FCR 56

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.

 

[ko531]

May it please the court, I wish to file an Amicus brief regarding the Plaintiffs ability to file cases relating to Corporate and Administrative law, with respect to their currently held Barrister specializations.

Denied

 

[Stoppers]

Avaneesh2008 will be representing The Exchange in the lawsuit regarding undatheradar.

 

[ko531]

The Defense has 48 hours to provide their answer to complaint.

 

[Avaneesh2008]

The defense requests an additional 12 hours after the original deadline due to unexpected in real life obligations that came up.

 

[ko531]

The defense requests an additional 12 hours after the original deadline due to unexpected in real life obligations that came up.

Granted.

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honor,

The Mezimoří Legal Department is authorized as a co-counsel for the Defense in this case.

Spoiler: Evidence of permission to represent

 

[Franciscus]

Answer to Complaint

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

MC20masarati
Plaintiff

v.

The Exchange
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. Deny that a motion to reconsider was filed and partially granted in fluffywaafelz v. MC20masarati, modifying the injunction such that only bank accounts would remain frozen, and that stock holdings could not be sold or traded, Noting that the relevant case name was and remains “fluffywaafelz v. undatheradar [2025] FCR 54” and that the Court’s ruling did not only freeze and restrict transfer of the aforementioned items.
   
   Deny that any such motion was both filed and partially granted on 3 June 2025, Noting that the ruling apparently referred to by the Plaintiff was issued at 3:42 AM UTC on 4 June 2025.
2. Affirm that following the aforementioned ruling, Plaintiff contacted Stoppers and requested that Plaintiff’s funds be unfrozen and a $1,000,000 withdrawal be processed (see Exhibit P-001), Noting that $1 million is an approximation here rather than the exact amount requested.
   
   Deny that Stoppers is the owner of The Exchange, Noting that The Exchange is a publicly traded company owned collectively by its shareholders, and that multiple classes of stock exist that entitle various parties to voting rights and/or rights to share in the earnings of the firm through the payment of dividends.
   
   Deny that Plaintiff initiated this message with an intent to allow for regular business operations in-game and to protect Plaintiff’s assets in the event of a market collapse, Noting that credible allegations of fraudulent activity had already then been made against the Plaintiff, and that the attempt to withdraw over $1 million at once for purposes of merely supporting “regular business operations” is suspect.
3. Neither affirm nor deny that "Stoppers declined the request and stated that [the Plaintiff] should bring the matter back before the Court", Noting that the Plaintiff’s use of “the matter” in Plaintiff’s alleged fact 3 is ambiguous as to whether Plaintiff refers to the Court’s modification to the emergency injunction itself or The Exchange’s freezing of the account.

II. DEFENCES

1. The Exchange’s Terms of Service allow the company to freeze accounts for, inter alia, (1) suspected fraud; and (2) out of necessity to protect The Exchange’s integrity.
   
   The Plaintiff was subject to The Exchange’s Terms of Service for Digitally Represented Commodities when using The Exchange (See: Exhibit D-001). Under Section 8.2 of the terms of service, the plaintiff agreed that "The Exchange reserves the right to suspend or terminate a Trader’s account at any time for violations of this Agreement, suspected fraud, or other reasons deemed necessary to protect the integrity of the Exchange" (emphasis mine).
   1. The Exchange reasonably suspected that the Plaintiff had committed fraud.
      
      Due to the evidence publicly presented in litigation against the plaintiff in fluffywaafelz v. undatheradar [2025] FCR 54 (see: Exhibit D-003), the Exchange had substantial reason to suspect that the Plaintiff had defrauded fluffywaafelz. In line with the Exchange’s terms of service, The Exchange had the express right to lawfully suspend the account at that time.
   2. It is necessary for the Exchange to comply with judicial intent behind court orders.
      
      Violating a court order would threaten the integrity of The Exchange; it is necessary to follow court orders for Defendant to protect Defendant’s own integrity.
      
      This Court had ordered a freeze on the Plaintiff’s assets in fluffywaafelz v. undatheradar, which included “bank accounts”. “Bank” is not a defined term in the Commercial Standards Act. The act, however, does define what a “Financial Institution” is; it is “a business that deals with deposits, loans, and/or investments”. It is reasonable to understand a “bank balance” as referring to cash balances held in financial institutions, including credit unions and stock exchanges.
      
      Likewise, the Exchange understands the intent of the judge’s first reconsideration to have been a freeze on cash balances held within financial institution accounts. A later ruling by this Court on 4 June, in which this Court explicitly noted that “[t]he defendants funds and balances in [T]he [E]xchange are also frozen” appears to have clarified this reading as having been consistent with Judicial intent in its injunctions freezing the Plaintiff’s money.
2. Embezzlement did not occur.
   
   The Plaintiff alleges that The Exchange engaged in “embezzlement”. Under Commercial Standards Act 9(1), embezzlement is defined as “The act of withholding assets for the purpose of conversion of such assets, by one or more persons to whom the assets were entrusted, for personal gain” (emphasis mine).
   1. No conversion of assets occurred.
      
      The Exchange did not convert client assets; it kept them frozen exactly as they were.
   2. No personal gain arose from freezing assets.
      
      Additionally, The Exchange did not enact this freeze for its personal gain (nor that of any of its officers).
   3. The Legislative intent clearly indicates that embezzlement does not apply here.
      
      The example given in Commercial Standards Act 9(1) — “spending company funds for personal gain of a company of which you do not own 100%.” — further shows the legislative intent behind this definition; temporarily freezing assets in compliance with a court order, while also having substantial reason to suspect the Plaintiff’s funds may be tied to fraud, is nowhere near what the legislature intended to be considered as “embezzlement”.
3. The Exchange’s liability for damages is limited by its Terms of Service.
   
   The Plaintiff, in agreeing to The Exchange’s Terms of Service for Digitally Represented Commodities, agreed in Section 7.1 therein that “The Exchange shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, or special damages arising out of or in connection with the use of the services, including but not limited to loss of profits, trading losses, or delivery delays.” Plaintiff’s central argument is that a delay in being able to withdraw funds has caused damages, but any such alleged damage would be liquidated under the contract’s terms: Plaintiff has already agreed that any damages that result from delivery delays are not the liability of The Exchange.
4. The Plaintiff has already agreed to indemnify The Exchange.
   
   The Plaintiff, in agreeing to The Exchange’s Terms of Service for Digitally Represented Commodities, agreed in Section 7.2 to “indemnify and hold the Exchange, its affiliates, officers, and employees harmless from any claims, damages, losses, or expenses arising from the Trader’s use of the services or breach of this Agreement.”
5. The Exchange’s Terms of Service allow it to suspend margin account privileges.
   
   As Exhibit P-001 notes, the Plaintiff had a margin balance with the Exchange. As such, and by using Defendant’s services, Plaintiff was subject to The Exchange’s Terms of Service Agreement for Margin Trading (see: Exhibit D-002).
   1. Under Section 8.2 of these terms of service, The Exchange may “suspend or terminate margin privileges for non-compliance or risk management”.
6. The Exchange is not required to process withdrawals in less than 24 hours.
   
   No order from the Federal Court, nor any statute, nor any contractual obligation compelled the Exchange to immediately, in less than 24 hours, process a cash withdrawal in excess of $1 million. The Plaintiff repeatedly requested that withdrawals be accelerated (see: Exhibit P-002), but there is no obligation for The Exchange to do this. And, as this Court clarified that Plaintiff's account was frozen less than 18 hours after the Plaintiff requested withdrawal, the Plaintiff was not plausibly harmed by a reasonable delay in a withdrawal.
7. The Plaintiff’s stated motivation for the withdrawal is suspect.
   
   Throughout discovery, the Defense plans to present evidence that casts doubt upon the Plaintiff’s motivation for the $1 million withdrawal.

III. Evidence

Spoiler: Exhibit D-001

Spoiler: Exhibit D-002

Spoiler: Exhibit D-003

fluffywaafelz v. undatheradar [2025] FCR 54, in its entirety, is incorporated as evidence by reference to the publicly available link herein. For convenience and posterity's sake, a screenshot of the beginning of this case is included below:

IV. Countersuit

1. In the event that the Defendant shall not be held liable in this case, the Defendant notes that a countersuit for 30% of the amount sought by the Plaintiff in the Plaintiff’s initial complaint ($354,435.11) in legal fees shall be immediately commenced, in line with the Legal Damages Act. These legal fees shall be equally split between Defendant counsel Avaneesh2008 and the Mezimori Legal Department (b:MZLD).

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 13 day of June 2025

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

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

Your Honor,

The defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges that the Plaintiff's case should be dismissed in line with Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim), for reasons including the following:

The Plaintiff’s First Claim for Relief does not plausibly allege a violation of any law in light of evidence presented​

1. The Plaintiff’s first claim is not a claim that The Exchange has violated any law. The Plaintiff alleges “unlawful retention of assets”, but this term is not defined in any statute, and the Plaintiff does not provide a rationale for why retention of assets in a good faith attempt to adhere to what the Defendant understood as a court order (see: Evidence P-003) would be unlawful.
2. “Bank” is not a defined term in the Commercial Standards Act. The act, however, does define what a “Financial Institution” is; it is “a business that deals with deposits, loans, and/or investments”.
3. In common parlance, a “bank” may refer to any financial institution, including credit unions or exchanges, where customers may have some cash or cash-like investment balance. The Exchange offers customers the ability to hold a brokerage account, which may include securities and/or a cash-like customer balance (see: Exhibit P-001).
4. The Exchange understands the intent of the judge’s first reconsideration to have been a freeze on cash held within financial institution accounts. A later ruling by this Court on 4 June, in which this Court explicitly noted that “[t]he defendants funds and balances in [T]he [E]xchange are also frozen” appears to have clarified this reading as having been consistent with Judicial intent in its injunctions freezing the Plaintiff’s money.
5. This case was filed by the Plaintiff on 6 June. At that time, the Plaintiff’s cash held in The Exchange was frozen by an order from this Court, so withholding was certainly lawful at the time of Plaintiff's filing.
6. For these reasons, the Defense submits that the Plaintiff has not validly alleged any violation of any law or statute nor common law offense under the first claim for relief, and that the first claim for relief should be dismissed in line with Rule 5.5.

The Plaintiff’s Second Claim for Relief is plainly unsupported by Plaintiff's factual allegations and evidence​

1. The Plaintiff alleges that The Exchange has committed “Embezzlement”. Under the Commercial Standards Act, embezzlement is defined as “The act of withholding assets for the purpose of conversion of such assets, by one or more persons to whom the assets were entrusted, for personal gain” .
2. The Plaintiff does not present any facts alleging that assets were converted in any manner; indeed the Plaintiff has submitted evidence (Exhibit P-001) indicating only that the assets were kept intact in the Plaintiff’s frozen account, and that the intent of The Exchange was to preserve the Plaintiff’s cash balance just as it was in light of its understanding of a court order (Exhibit P-003).
3. Moreover, The Plaintiff does not present any facts alleging that The Exchange personally gained from this asset freeze.
4. Because the Plaintiff does not present any facts alleging that The Exchange withheld assets for purposes of converting those assets, nor for personally benefiting, the Plaintiff does not plausibly support the allegation of the crime of Embezzlement.
5. As the Plaintiff has insufficient evidence to support the civil/criminal charge contained within the Plaintiff’s second claim, the second claim should be dismissed in line with Rule 5.5.

Conclusion​

Under Rule 5.5, dismissal may be warranted “for failure to state a claim for relief, or against an claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge”. The facts and evidence provided, when read in light of the laws of the Commonwealth and this Court’s prior rulings (c.f. Rule 5.1), do not plausibly support either of the Plaintiff’s claims for relief.

In light of the above, and the evidence in this case, it appears that this case is plainly frivolous. The Defense asks that the case be dismissed with prejudice, and that the Plaintiff be charged with having lodged a Frivolous Court Case under Miscellaneous Offenses Act 4(8).

 

[undatheradar]

Requesting a response to their motion to dismiss.

 

[ko531]

Requesting a response to their motion to dismiss.

Granted. You have 24 hours.

 

[Franciscus]

Answer to Complaint

…

Deny that Stoppers is the owner of The Exchange, Noting that The Exchange is a publicly traded company owned collectively by its shareholders.

Your honor,

Motion

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

The defense seeks to amend the quoted portion to read:

Deny that Stoppers is the owner of The Exchange, Noting that The Exchange is a publicly traded company owned collectively by its shareholders, and that multiple classes of stock exist that entitle various parties to voting rights and/or rights to share in the earnings of the firm through the payment of dividends.

 

[ko531]

Your honor,

Motion

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

The defense seeks to amend the quoted portion to read:

Granted.

 

[undatheradar]

Motion

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

Your Honor,

The defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges that the Plaintiff's case should be dismissed in line with Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim), for reasons including the following:

The Plaintiff’s First Claim for Relief does not plausibly allege a violation of any law in light of evidence presented​

1. The Plaintiff’s first claim is not a claim that The Exchange has violated any law. The Plaintiff alleges “unlawful retention of assets”, but this term is not defined in any statute, and the Plaintiff does not provide a rationale for why retention of assets in a good faith attempt to adhere to what the Defendant understood as a court order (see: Evidence P-003) would be unlawful.
2. “Bank” is not a defined term in the Commercial Standards Act. The act, however, does define what a “Financial Institution” is; it is “a business that deals with deposits, loans, and/or investments”.
3. In common parlance, a “bank” may refer to any financial institution, including credit unions or exchanges, where customers may have some cash or cash-like investment balance. The Exchange offers customers the ability to hold a brokerage account, which may include securities and/or a cash-like customer balance (see: Exhibit P-001).
4. The Exchange understands the intent of the judge’s first reconsideration to have been a freeze on cash held within financial institution accounts. A later ruling by this Court on 4 June, in which this Court explicitly noted that “[t]he defendants funds and balances in [T]he [E]xchange are also frozen” appears to have clarified this reading as having been consistent with Judicial intent in its injunctions freezing the Plaintiff’s money.
5. This case was filed by the Plaintiff on 6 June. At that time, the Plaintiff’s cash held in The Exchange was frozen by an order from this Court, so withholding was certainly lawful at the time of Plaintiff's filing.
6. For these reasons, the Defense submits that the Plaintiff has not validly alleged any violation of any law or statute nor common law offense under the first claim for relief, and that the first claim for relief should be dismissed in line with Rule 5.5.

The Plaintiff’s Second Claim for Relief is plainly unsupported by Plaintiff's factual allegations and evidence​

1. The Plaintiff alleges that The Exchange has committed “Embezzlement”. Under the Commercial Standards Act, embezzlement is defined as “The act of withholding assets for the purpose of conversion of such assets, by one or more persons to whom the assets were entrusted, for personal gain” .
2. The Plaintiff does not present any facts alleging that assets were converted in any manner; indeed the Plaintiff has submitted evidence (Exhibit P-001) indicating only that the assets were kept intact in the Plaintiff’s frozen account, and that the intent of The Exchange was to preserve the Plaintiff’s cash balance just as it was in light of its understanding of a court order (Exhibit P-003).
3. Moreover, The Plaintiff does not present any facts alleging that The Exchange personally gained from this asset freeze.
4. Because the Plaintiff does not present any facts alleging that The Exchange withheld assets for purposes of converting those assets, nor for personally benefiting, the Plaintiff does not plausibly support the allegation of the crime of Embezzlement.
5. As the Plaintiff has insufficient evidence to support the civil/criminal charge contained within the Plaintiff’s second claim, the second claim should be dismissed in line with Rule 5.5.

Conclusion​

Under Rule 5.5, dismissal may be warranted “for failure to state a claim for relief, or against an claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge”. The facts and evidence provided, when read in light of the laws of the Commonwealth and this Court’s prior rulings (c.f. Rule 5.1), do not plausibly support either of the Plaintiff’s claims for relief.

In light of the above, and the evidence in this case, it appears that this case is plainly frivolous. The Defense asks that the case be dismissed with prejudice, and that the Plaintiff be charged with having lodged a Frivolous Court Case under Miscellaneous Offenses Act 4(8).

The trial has not yet entered the discovery phase, and it is premature to entertain a motion to dismiss at this stage. There remains ample time for evidence to be gathered, claims to be substantiated, and the record to be developed before the Court evaluates the legal sufficiency of the case in full. The claims alleged—specifically embezzlement and breach of contract—are both actionable and remediable offenses if proven. It is well established in this Court’s custom that cases are allowed to proceed into discovery before being dismissed, especially when the facts alleged, if true, would support a legal cause of action. The defense’s assertion that no violation of law has been alleged is simply false. Embezzlement has been clearly stated, and breach of contract will be argued as well. To dismiss a case prior to fact-finding is to short-circuit the very purpose of litigation: to determine what happened and apply the law accordingly. It is not expected that all answers be available at the outset—if they were, we wouldn’t need trials.

The defense’s AI-generated boilerplate motion ignores these principles and should be denied so the case can proceed properly through the judicial process.

 

[Franciscus]

Granted. You have 24 hours.

The trial has not yet entered the discovery phase, and it is premature to entertain a motion to dismiss at this stage. There remains ample time for evidence to be gathered, claims to be substantiated, and the record to be developed before the Court evaluates the legal sufficiency of the case in full. The claims alleged—specifically embezzlement and breach of contract—are both actionable and remediable offenses if proven. It is well established in this Court’s custom that cases are allowed to proceed into discovery before being dismissed, especially when the facts alleged, if true, would support a legal cause of action. The defense’s assertion that no violation of law has been alleged is simply false. Embezzlement has been clearly stated, and breach of contract will be argued as well. To dismiss a case prior to fact-finding is to short-circuit the very purpose of litigation: to determine what happened and apply the law accordingly. It is not expected that all answers be available at the outset—if they were, we wouldn’t need trials.

The defense’s AI-generated boilerplate motion ignores these principles and should be denied so the case can proceed properly through the judicial process.

Objection

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

Your honor,

Your Honor granted the Defense 24 hours to provide a response to the motion to dismiss, but the defense has failed to submit a reply in this time. For this reason, the Plaintiff asks that the reply be stricken in its entirety.

 

[undatheradar]

Your Honor,

I’m a new lawyer and haven’t gotten adjusted to these super fast deadlines during the work. I was also at a high school graduation party.