Lawsuit: Adjourned MrTheTanTan v. jamie4432 [2026] DCR 162

Y8l

Y8l

Citizen
Y8l_
Y8l_
Barrister
Joined
Jul 14, 2026
Messages
27

Case Filing


Case Filing



IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

CIVIL ACTION



MrTheTanTan

Plaintiff



v.



jamie4432

Defendant

COMPLAINT​

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
He messaged me first on 7/9/26 asking if I would be interested in buying stacks of netherite for cheap, I asked if this was a scam and he said no and showed me the image of the netherite in his hotbar, he said that he is offering 10 stacks for 40K, i said i don't have enough money but I would be interested in buying less, then he offered to reduce it to 30K for 10 stacks. i did some math and learned that 1.5 stacks was 4.5k, i offered it and then he replied by offering me 3 stacks for 10k, i said i don't have 10k so i said ill buy it for 9k, he agreed to it, but then I found out i would lose 2k by selling and he replied to it by changing the deal to 5 stacks for 9k, I asked to confirm the deal of 5 stacks of netherite for 9k and he said yes. then I went ingame, waited for him to join and then he told me to go to /zoo to meet him, he was holding the netherite in his hand and told me to follow him, i made sure again that i understood the deal correctly and he said yes again and I also verified that his username was .jamie4432, then after counting down from 3 i paid him, he stood still for a moment, moved a bit and logged off. I messaged him on Discord more, and after talking a bit about the money he stole, he said that he gambled it away. Then I told him I am taking it to court, he asked i don't and promised to pay me, so i told him he has a week, and he thanked me for it. I messaged him twice in the following days, and he has been ghosting me, not looking or replying to the messages.
Click to expand...
PARTIES

1. MrTheTanTan (Plaintiff)

2. jamie4432, also known as "Top seller" and ".jamie" (Defendant)

II. FACTS

1. On July 9th, 2026, the Plaintiff and Defendant negotiated a netherite sale and agreed on a final price of 5 stacks of netherite for $9,000 (P-001)(P-002)(P-003).

2. The Defendant told the Plaintiff to meet her at the zoo and to send payment to ".jamie" (P-004).

3. The Plaintiff paid the Defendant the full $9,000, and the payment is confirmed by the server's own automatically generated transaction log (P-005)(P-006).

4. The Plaintiff has video of the trade taking place (P-007).

5. The Defendant never delivered any netherite in return for that payment.

6. When the Plaintiff asked her about it, the Defendant admitted in writing that she'd gambled $9,000 away and asked the Plaintiff not to pursue legal action (P-008).

7. The Plaintiff set a seven-day deadline to repay the Defendant (P-009)(P-010).

8. That deadline has passed. The Defendant still hasn't delivered the netherite or repaid the $9,000.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. Breach of Contract — RCCA, Part VI, Section 1. There was a deal here, plain and simple: 5 stacks of netherite for $9,000. The plaintiff held up their end and paid in full. The Defendant did not hold up theirs. The deal wasn't void; nothing outside control stopped the Defendant from delivering as he chose to gamble the money away; the plaintiff didn't breach first and wasn't tricked or pressured into agreeing to the trade in the first place.

2. Conversion — Obtaining Property by False Promise. Failing that, this also amounts to Conversion. The Defendant took $9,000 for netherite, which was never delivered, and by his own statement gambled it instead. That's obtaining property by false promise as part of a scheme to defraud, which is exactly what the Redmont Civil Code Act covers under Conversion — and it's why treble damages and restitution are on the table as remedies here.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. $9,000 in Compensatory Damages, representing full restitution of the funds paid to the Defendant for goods never delivered.

2. In the alternative, and pursuant to the Conversion count above, Treble Damages of $27,000, reflecting the Defendant's admitted, knowing, and intentional scheme to obtain and withhold the Plaintiff's funds by false promise.

3. Any other relief that the Court may find appropriate.

Witness List:
None.
Evidence List:

Screenshots of the relevant Discord chat log and in-game payment log are attached below as exhibits. Video of the trade (P-007) is available separately and will be provided to the Court on request.

P-001: Discord chat log — initial negotiation of netherite sale.
1784094566578.png
P-002: Discord chat log — Plaintiff confirms final price of 5 stacks for $9,000.
1784094489494.png
P-003: Discord chat log — Defendant states she will not lose anything on the deal at 5 stacks for $9,000.
1784094466140.png
P-004: Discord chat log — Defendant directs Plaintiff to meet at the zoo and pay ".jamie".
1784094403480.png
P-005: Screenshot — server payment log confirming $9,000.00 payment from MrTheTanTan to .jamie4432.
1784094358273.png
P-006: Screenshot — duplicate capture of the server payment log.
1784094380480.png
P-007: Video recording of the in-game trade
Video
P-008: Discord chat log — Defendant admits to gambling the $9,000 away and asks not to be sued.
1784093741884.png
P-009: Discord chat log —Plaintiff’s proposes a repayment timeline and Defendant agrees
1784094602058.png
P-010: Discord chat log —Plaintiff’s pinned message setting a five-day repayment deadline.
1784093518564.png

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 16th day of July, 2026

 
Last edited:
<c:\tantan\documents\ttexes\games\classic\minecraft\1218\servers\democracycraft\> start forumbumpcase#1.bat

Output: Bump
 

Court Order


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
COURT ORDER

Within 48 hours, this Court respectfully orders the plaintiff to:

1) Post Exhibit 7 on a video-sharing platform using a permanent link, and amend the Complaint to replace the existing MediaFire link with the permanent link to the video-sharing platform.

2) Amend the Complaint to comply with Court Rules 4.1 and 4.6.

After that, summons will be issued.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Y8l
Your Honour, @Poker


May I have an extra 24 hours to respond to the court order? Due to schoolwork, plus another case I'm working on. Just want the time to actually get this response right instead of rushing it.

Thanks,
Y8l_
 

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


MrTheTanTan
Plaintiff

v.

.jamie
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

He messaged me first on 7/9/26 asking if I would be interested in buying stacks of netherite for cheap, I asked if this was a scam and he said no and showed me the image of the netherite in his hotbar, he said that he is offering 10 stacks for 40K, i said i don't have enough money but I would be interested in buying less, then he offered to reduce it to 30K for 10 stacks. i did some math and learned that 1.5 stacks was 4.5k, i offered it and then he replied by offering me 3 stacks for 10k, i said i don't have 10k so i said ill buy it for 9k, he agreed to it, but then I found out i would lose 2k by selling and he replied to it by changing the deal to 5 stacks for 9k, I asked to confirm the deal of 5 stacks of netherite for 9k and he said yes. then I went ingame, waited for him to join and then he told me to go to /zoo to meet him, he was holding the netherite in his hand and told me to follow him, i made sure again that i understood the deal correctly and he said yes again and I also verified that his username was .jamie4432, then after counting down from 3 i paid him, he stood still for a moment, moved a bit and logged off. I messaged him on Discord more, and after talking a bit about the money he stole, he said that he gambled it away. Then I told him I am taking it to court, he asked i don't and promised to pay me, so i told him he has a week, and he thanked me for it. I messaged him twice in the following days, and he has been ghosting me, not looking or replying to the messages.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES

1. MrTheTanTan (Plaintiff)

2. jamie4432, also known as "Top seller" and ".jamie" (Defendant)

II. FACTS

1. On July 9th, 2026, the Plaintiff and Defendant negotiated a netherite sale and agreed on a final price of 5 stacks of netherite for $9,000 (p-001)(p-002)(p-003).

2. The Defendant told the Plaintiff to meet her at the zoo and to send payment to ".jamie" (p-004).

3. The Plaintiff paid the Defendant the full $9,000, and the payment is confirmed by the server's chat log (p-005).

4. The Plaintiff has video of the trade taking place (p-006).

5. The Defendant never delivered any netherite in return for that payment (p-006)

6. When the Plaintiff asked her about it, the Defendant admitted in writing that she'd gambled $9,000 away and asked the Plaintiff not to pursue legal action (p-007).

7. The Plaintiff set a seven-day deadline to repay the Defendant (p-009).

8. That deadline has passed. The Defendant still hasn't delivered the netherite or repaid the $9,000.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. Breach of Contract — RCCA, Part VI, Section 1. There was a deal here, plain and simple: 5 stacks of netherite for $9,000. The plaintiff held up their end and paid in full. The Defendant did not hold up theirs. The deal wasn't void; nothing outside their control stopped the Defendant from delivering, as he chose to gamble the money away; the plaintiff didn't breach first and wasn't tricked or pressured into agreeing to the trade in the first place.

2. Conversion — Obtaining Property by False Promise. Failing that, this also amounts to Conversion. The Defendant took $9,000 for netherite, which was never delivered, and by his own statement gambled it instead. That's obtaining property by false promise as part of a scheme to defraud, which is exactly what the Redmont Civil Code Act covers under Conversion — and it's why treble damages and restitution are on the table as remedies here.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. $9,000 in Compensatory Damages, representing full restitution of the funds paid to the Defendant for goods never delivered.

2. In the alternative, and pursuant to the Conversion count above, Treble Damages of $27,000, reflecting the Defendant's admitted, knowing, and intentional scheme to obtain and withhold the Plaintiff's funds by false promise.

3. Any other relief that the Court may find appropriate.

V. Evidence

P-001
chat4.png

P-002
chat3.png

P-003
chat3.png

P-004
chat2.png

P-005
Transactions.png

P-006 Proof of trade

P-007
chat1.png

P-008
chat0.png

P-009
chat0.png



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 September 2026

 
Last edited:
<c:\tantan\documents\ttexes\games\classic\minecraft\1218\servers\democracycraft\> start forumbumpcase#1.bat

Output: Bump
 
@Y8l i appreciate your effort on the new draft, but the order was to edit you first Complaint (post #1) to be compliant.

We only give refile opportunity when the lawyer who made the post containing the Complaint is not available to edit it. This is not the case.

Within 48 hours, please, make Post #1 content exactly the same as Post #8, after that second Complaint will be struck.

.jamie4432 is permanently deported, court will enter in recess pending verdict after that.
 

Attachments

  • C-001.png
    C-001.png
    23.2 KB · Views: 5
  • Like
Reactions: Y8l
Your Honour

I hope the new edit is good and complies with the changes oh Post 10
 
Last edited:
Poker said:
@Y8l i appreciate your effort on the new draft, but the order was to edit you first Complaint (post #1) to be compliant.

We only give refile opportunity when the lawyer who made the post containing the Complaint is not available to edit it. This is not the case.

Within 48 hours, please, make Post #1 content exactly the same as Post #8, after that second Complaint will be struck.

.jamie4432 is permanently deported, court will enter in recess pending verdict after that.
Click to expand...
Your Honor, @Poker

I hope this satisfies the court's needs.
 
Y8l said:
Your Honour

I hope the new edit is good and complies with the changes oh Post 10
Click to expand...
I won't revert your edit (there were another Complaint in this post). But, for future reference,

Rule 3.3 is clear, Amendments to the complaint must be declared and explained to the presiding judge [except in this case, where the amendment was ordered under rule 1.4.1 and 1.2]. Afterwards, the plaintiff (or prosecution) may edit the post containing their complaint. Nothing in Court Rules of Procedures gives the habitability to post another Complaint without prior authorization.

This Court usually grants this possibility when the Plaintiff's lawyer is unable to amend the exist Complaint. In this case, this is due to the constitutional right to a fair trial. Without this, Plaintiff would be unable to amend facts, claims for relief, prayers for relief and parties. However, in this case, Y8l is still the same lawyer as in the first Complaint.

Thereby, refiling it instead of amending the existing one unnecessarily bloats the docket and undermines the clarity and orderly understanding of these proceedings, which is against the stated scope and purposes of the Rules and Procedures (as under Rule 1.6).

Defendant is permanently deported, we will proceed to default judgement. This Court is now in recess pending a verdict.
 

Verdict


IN THE DISTRICT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
MrTheTanTan v. .jamie4432 [2026] DCR 162

I. BACKGROUND
On July 9, 2026, parties agreed to a sale of five stacks of netherite for $9,000. The Plaintiff paid the full amount as instructed by the Defendant, with the transaction confirmed by server logs and video evidence (P-001–P-007). The Defendant never delivered the netherite and later admitted that he had gambled away the $9,000 (P-008). After the Plaintiff gave her seven days to repay the amount (P-009–P-010), the deadline expired without repayment or delivery.

II. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. Plaintiff alleges
1.1. Breach of Contract
1.2. Conversion

III. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. Defendant is permanently deported

IV. THE COURT OPINION
1. The Contract

Contract Formation
(1) A contract is a legally binding agreement between two or more parties that creates an obligation to do or not do a particular thing.
(2) A valid contract is formed when the following legal test is met:
(a) Offer. An offer is a clear and unequivocal communication expressing a party's willingness to enter into a contract, either explicitly stated or reasonably inferred from the circumstances.
(b) Acceptance. Acceptance is the positive and unambiguous response to an offer communicated to the offeror, mirroring the terms of the offer and conveyed through various means.
(c) Consideration. Consideration, an essential element, involves the exchange of something of value between parties, with sufficiency though not necessarily adequacy. Consideration can be tangible or intanglbie.
(d) Intent. Parties must demonstrate a clear intention to create legal obligations for the contract to be valid.
(e) Capacity. Parties entering into a contract must possess the legal capacity to do so. Players with low playtime may lack the capacity to fairly enter a contract.
Click to expand...

According to the Contracts Act, an contract is made when the following legal elements exists: offer, acceptance, consideration, intention and capacity. First, we need to analysis if a contract was made.

1.a Offer
On July 9, 2026, the Defendant offered to sell five stacks of netherite to the Plaintiff for $9,000

1.b Acceptance
The Plaintiff accepted the Defendant's offer by agreeing to the purchase

1.c Consideration
The Plaintiff was required to provide $9,000, while the Defendant was required to provide five stacks of netherite in return.

1.d Intent
As shown by P-007, the Plaintiff and Defendant were side by side and prepared to complete the trade.

1.e Capacity
In a sua sponte research by this Court, Defendant's total playtime was about 1 hour.

While players with low playtime may lack the capacity to fairly enter into a contract, and the Defendant had less than 6 hours of playtime at the time of the negotiation with the Plaintiff, the Federal Court decided that “every decision on capacity must be made on a case-by-case basis” (Dimitre977 v. kesballo [2025] FCR 6).

In this case, the Defendant was the one who initiated the negotiation, instructed the Plaintiff to send the payment, and ultimately said he was going to drop the netherite for the Plaintiff. Therefore, based on the facts of this case, low playtime alone is not enough to defeat capacity.

Thereby, a valid contract was formed, as all contract elements were meet.

2. On Breach of Contract
According to the RCCA,
Breach of Contract
Violation Type: Strict Liability
Remedy: No Fixed Remedy
A person commits a violation if the person:
(a) fails to perform obligations under a valid and enforceable contract without lawful excuse.
This violation shall not occur where:
(b) the contract is void or voidable; or
(c) performance was rendered impossible by circumstances beyond the party’s control; or
(d) the other party materially breached the contract first; or
(e) the party was induced to enter the contract through misrepresentation or duress.
Click to expand...

As seen above, the Defendant made a valid contract with the Plaintiff for the sale of five stacks of netherite for $9,000. The Plaintiff fully performed his obligation by making the agreed payment, while the Defendant failed to perform her corresponding obligation to deliver the five stacks of netherite. No excuse under subparagraphs (b) and (e) has been established.

Breach of Contract is proved.

3. On Conversion
According to the RCCA,
Conversion
Violation Type: Intentional
Remedy: Treble damages; Restitution
A person commits a violation if the person:
(a) wrongfully takes, obtains, or withholds property from an owner; and
(b) intends to deprive the owner of the property or to appropriate it to themselves or a third party; and
(c) the wrongful taking, obtaining, or withholding is committed by:
(i) stealing property with the intent to permanently deprive the owner; or
(ii) obtaining property through deception, lies, or false statements; or
(iii) embezzlement or obtaining property by false pretences; or
(iv) knowingly acquiring lost property without taking reasonable measures to return it to the owner; or
(v) obtaining property by false promise pursuant to a scheme to defraud; or
(vi) extortion.
This violation shall not occur where:
(d) the action occurs in the End, Nether wild, or everwild; or
(e) the defendant reasonably believed they had a right to the property.
Click to expand...

3.a Wrongfully takes, obtains, or withholds property from an owner
Defendant obtained $9,000 from Plaintiff for the promised delivery of five stacks of netherite. However, Defendant failed to perform her obligation under the contract and never delivered the agreed goods.

3.b Intends to deprive the owner of the property or to appropriate it to themselves or a third party
Defendant not only deprived the owner of his property, but also gamble it away and stopped responding him afterwards.

3.c The wrongful taking, obtaining, or withholding is committed by (...)
In this case, the following subparagraph applies

3.c. (v) obtaining property by false promise pursuant to a scheme to defraud
intentionally or recklessly, under the guise of a contract, the Defendant obtained the Plaintiff's $9,000 in a scheme to defraud. The Defendant initiated the Contract, agreed to receive the Plaintiff's payment, and represented that the netherite would be delivered in exchange for the $9,000. Relying on that promise, the Plaintiff transferred the full purchase price to the Defendant.

However, after obtaining the Plaintiff's money, Defendant did not deliver the agreed netherite and logged out from the game. Further, Defendant admitted that she had gambled away the $9,000 and subsequently failed to return the money after being given a period of time to do so.

Conversion is proved.

V. DECISION
The District Court hereby rules in favor of the Plaintiff with modified Prayers (for Legal Fees).

1. Treble Damages - GRANTED
According to RCCA, Part III, §8(1)(a), Treble damages are damages awarded at three times the actual damages suffered, as a form of enhanced compensation and deterrence, and §8(2)(a), Treble damages shall only be awarded where explicitly authorised by a specific violation in this Code.

Conversion authorizes treble damage. Plaintiff is awarded 27.000 R$.

2. Compensatory Damages - DENIED
According to RCCA, Part III, §8(2)(b), Where treble damages are awarded, they replace (not supplant) standard compensatory damages.

3. Legal Fees (modified) - GRANTED
According to RCCA, Part III, §7(2)(a), Legal fees shall be awarded at a rate of 30% of the case value to the prevailing party.

Per RCCA and precedent, legal fees are obligatory, unless the Legal Representative choose not to be awarded and communicate this to the court in a case filing, response, or plea (RCCA, Part III, §7(2)(I)). Plaintiff is awarded 8.100 R$.


@MrTheTanTan shall be awarded 35.100 R$ against .jamie4432

EDIT: The following alternative accounts from the Defendant are also liable
  1. .UrbanDispatchMC
  2. .ScurvyKhan6277
  3. .urbanDis5583
  4. .CrownedWitness
  5. .UrbanDispatch
  6. .EarlySole3739
  7. .Ethan1016167
  8. .JamesLawson9422
  9. .Hannah35210
  10. .Whisperboy13
  11. .IdleApollo4583
  12. .EthanGaming3330
  13. .CrownedEtyYT
Click to expand...


The District Court thanks all involved.

 
Last edited:

Court Order


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
RECONSIDERATION OF DECISIONS

When talking with DHS, i noted i made a blatant error on not including Defendant's alternative accounts in the liability for the damage (see Q.C. [2026] FCR 52 | [2026] SCR 14).

This Court will amend the Verdict to include any other accounts belonging to the Defendant once staff provides the relevant player list. DHS is hereby authorized to enforce the monetary judgment against those accounts without the prior amendment.

Case will stay archived.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top