Lawsuit: Dismissed MC20masarati v. TheExchange [2025] FCR 55

[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, with respect to their currently held legal qualifications.

 

[ko531]

This case is being dismissed Sua Sponte

The plaintiff who is representing themselves in this case does not have the legal credentials defined in the Modern Legal Reform Act to file not only this case but any case in any court as seen by the attacted file. Due to the lack of legal credentials, this court can't hear such a case and must dismiss it. If the plaintiff would like to seek legal action they must either obtain the needed legal credentials or hire a lawyer.

This case is dismissed without prejudice