Franciscus
President
President
Congressional Staff
Supporter
Aventura Resident
State Department
Homeland Security Department
Education Department
Commerce Department
Multiman155
President
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2025
- Messages
- 2,339
- Thread Author
- #1
Case Filing
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
Multiman155,
Plaintiff;
TyTube_Yt,
Co-Plaintiff;
&
vaxx,
Co-Plaintiff
v.
Slapout
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION
Multiman155,
Plaintiff;
TyTube_Yt,
Co-Plaintiff;
&
vaxx,
Co-Plaintiff
v.
Slapout
Defendant
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiffs complain against the Defendant as follows:I. PARTIES
- Multiman155 (Plaintiff)
- TyTube_Yt (Co-Plaintiff)
- vaxx (Co-Plaintiff)
- ElegantAlly (co-Plaintiff, also known as “Ally La Banca”)
- SixAnemone9780 (co-Plaintiff, also known by alias “kachuaa”)
- 396Vette (co-Plaintiff)
- Yatblue (also known under alias “Slapout”) (Defendant)
II. FACTS
- On 10 June 2026, Defendant slapout contacted Plaintiff Multiman155 to inquire if Plaintiff was interested in purchasing a golden drill (Exhibit P-001)
- Subsequently, Plaintiff and Defendant met in Aventura, where Defendant was holding a chest-shaped object in his hand (Exhibit P-002, P-003).
- Defendant asked Plaintiff if Plaintiff wanted to move to a discrete location (Exhibit P-003).
- Plaintiff and Defendant negotiated over terms of payment while in Aventura, with Defendant expressing concern regarding people having previously "scammed" defendant (Exhibit P-004).
- After negotiation, Plaintiff and Defendant agreed that Plaintiff would pay Defendant $10,000 upfront in exchange for "this golden drill" (Exhibits P-005 through P-008).
- This negotiation, including offer and acceptance by both parties, created a verbal contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant.
- Plaintiff paid Defendant $10,000 subsequent to the agreement in fact 5 being reached (Exhibit P-008).
- After receiving payment, Defendant transferred Plaintiff an ordinary chest rather than a golden drill (Exhibits P-009, P-010).
- Prior to litigation, Plaintiff offered Defendant the opportunity to return the $10,000 in exchange for the ordinary chest given to Plaintiff (Exhibit P-010).
- Plaintiff relied on Defendant's representation that Defendant was to provide Plaintiff "this golden drill" when sending Defendant $10,000.
- Plaintiff was induced to enter into a contract by Defendant's representation that Defendant would give Plaintiff "this golden drill".
- Defendant deceived Plaintiff in connection with the sale of a golden drill.
- As a result of Defendant's misrepresentations, Plaintiff suffered a loss of $10,000 in cash.
- As of the time of filing, Defendant has still not delivered Plaintiff a golden drill.
- On the early morning of 11 June 2026, Defendant and Co-Plaintiff vaxx discussed Co-Plaintiff purchasing a golden drill from Defendant in exchange for $10,000 (Exhibit P-012 and P-013).
- Defendant offered to "drop this golden drill to vaxx" once Co-Plaintiff vaxx transferred Defendant $10,000 (Exhibit P-013).
- Co-Plaintiff vaxx accepted this offer, creating a verbal contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant.
- Co-Plaintiff vaxx transferred Defendant $10,000, after which Defendant dropped a chest to Co-Plaintiff vaxx rather than the promised golden drill (Exhibit P-014 and P-015).
- Co-Plaintiff vaxx was induced to enter into a contract by Defendant's representation that Defendant would give Co-Plaintiff Vaxx "this golden drill".
- Defendant deceived Co-Plaintiff vaxx in connection with the sale of a golden drill.
- As a result of Defendant's misrepresentations, Co-Plaintiff Vaxx suffered a loss of $10,000 in cash.
- As of the time of filing, Defendant has still not delivered Co-Plaintiff vaxx a golden drill.
- On the early morning of 11 June 2026, Defendant and Co-Plaintiff TyTube_Yt discussed Co-Plaintiff purchasing a golden drill from Defendant in exchange for $8,000 (Exhibit P-016 through P-018).
- Co-Plaintiff TyTube_Yt and Defendant agreed that Co-Plaintiff TyTube_Yt would pay Defendant $4,000 upfront, then Defendant would drop the golden drill, then Co-Plaintiff would pay Defendant another $4,000 (Exhibit P-016 through P-023).
- The agreement in the aforementioned fact constituted a verbal contract between Co-Plaintiff TyTube_yt and Defendant.
- Co-Plaintiff TyTube_Yt paid Defendant $4,000, but Defendant dropped Co-Plaintiff a plain chest rather than a golden drill.
- Co-Plaintiff TyTube_yt was induced to enter into a contract by Defendant's representation that Defendant would give Co-Plaintiff TyTube a golden drill.
- Defendant deceived Co-Plaintiff TyTube_yt in connection with the sale of a golden drill.
- As a result of Defendant's misrepresentations, Co-Plaintiff TyTube_yt suffered a loss of $4,000 in cash.
- As of the time of filing, Defendant has still not delivered Co-Plaintiff TyTube_yt a golden drill.
- At all times relevant, Defendant had more than sufficient playtime to form a contract (see: Exhibit P-024).
- Defendant's misrepresentations that Defendant would provide Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiffs with a golden drill after payment was done with actual knowledge as to the falsity of the misrepresentations.
- Co-Plaintiff 396Vette was seeking to purchase a golden drill.
- Defendant messaged 396Vette and represented that he was selling a golden drill.
- Relying on Defendant’s representation, 396Vette expressed interest in purchasing the golden drill.
- 396Vette and Defendant met at 396Vette’s shop to complete the transaction.
- Defendant represented that he would provide 396Vette with the golden drill after 396Vette paid him 10,000 dollars.
- 396Vette agreed to the transaction and paid Defendant 10,000 dollars.
- After receiving the 10,000 dollars, Defendant did not provide 396Vette with a golden drill.
- Instead, Defendant delivered or threw to 396Vette a chest called “Golden Drill.”
- The chest Defendant delivered was not a golden drill.
- After delivering the renamed chest, Defendant teleported away.
- Defendant then ignored 396Vette’s follow-up messages.
- 396Vette suffered damages of 10,000 dollars.
- On or about June 11, 2026, at approximately 11:00 AM IST, Defendant messaged kachuaa in-game.
- Defendant represented that he could sell kachuaa a golden drill for 11,000 dollars.
- kachuaa had previously seen Defendant on the server and trusted him.
- Relying on Defendant’s representation, kachuaa told Defendant to come to the hospital so that kachuaa could pay Defendant and receive the drill.
- Defendant came to the hospital.
- Defendant sent kachuaa a contract, as shown in kachuaa’s screenshots.
- kachuaa paid Defendant 11,000 dollars.
- After receiving the 11,000 dollars, Defendant did not provide kachuaa with a golden drill.
- Instead, Defendant gave kachuaa a chest called “golden drill.”
- The chest Defendant delivered was not a golden drill.
- The chest did not contain a golden drill.
- After receiving payment and delivering the renamed chest, Defendant placed kachuaa on his ignore list.
- Because Defendant placed kachuaa on ignore, kachuaa could not message Defendant afterward.
- kachuaa suffered damages of 11,000 dollars.
- Plaintiff Ally La Banca encountered Defendant’s chestshop near the post office.
- The chestshop was located in a high-traffic area where players commonly pass while accessing the post office.
- At the time of Ally’s purchase, the server was experiencing performance issues.
- The server had recently been DDoSed, and chunks were not loading properly.
- Ally was walking to the post office to pick up a package from robotalan.
- Ally did not intend to shop at Defendant’s chestshop.
- Due to lag and chunk-loading issues, Ally accidentally clicked Defendant’s chestshop.
- Defendant’s chestshop was identified as chest#6wx.
- Defendant’s chestshop represented or appeared to represent that it was selling a golden drill.
- As a result of the chestshop transaction, Ally paid or was charged 10,000 dollars.
- Ally did not receive a golden drill.
- Instead, Ally received a chest renamed “golden drill.”
- The item Ally received was not a golden drill.
- The item Ally received did not contain a golden drill.
- Ally suffered damages of 10,000 dollars.
- Ally opened a staff ticket soon after the transaction.
- In that ticket, staff member Sypder_Crypt stated or indicated that Ally was “another… victim.”
- Staff did not refund Ally or otherwise reverse the transaction.
- Ally contacted Defendant seeking a refund.
- Ally gave Defendant 48 hours to refund the 10,000 dollars before pursuing legal action.
- Defendant did not reimburse Ally within that 48-hour period.
- Defendant was unjustly enriched because Ally paid 10,000 dollars for what appeared to be a golden drill and received only a renamed chest.
- Defendant’s chestshop was misleading because it caused or permitted players to believe they were purchasing a golden drill when the actual item was merely a renamed chest.
- Defendant used an alternative account when causing harm to Plaintiff and co-Plaintiffs.
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
III.A. Breach of Contract
The Redmont Civil Code Act defines the civil violation of Breach of Contract as a strict liability violation as follows:(RCCA, Part VI, Section 1).
The civil violation requires Plaintiff to prove three things on balance of probabilities: (1) that defendant failed to perform; (2) that a "valid and enforceable contract" existed; and (3) that Defendant lacked lawful excuse for failure to perform (lawful excuses are given in RCCA, Part VI, Section 1(b)-(e)).
Contracts are formed subject to the five-point test laid out in the Contracts Act:
(Contracts Act, Section 4(2)).
Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiffs allege that Defendant entered into a valid contract with each of them, then failed to perform the Defendant's obligations in the respective contracts, triggering liability for the Defendant under the RCCA owing to defendant's lack of lawful excuse for failure to perform. We will analyze contract formation below alongside specific applications of the law to the facts relating to Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiffs.
III.A.1. Defendant committed breach of contract against Plaintiff Multiman155
First, we examine whether a contract was formed between Defendant and Plaintiff Multiman155. Then we will examine failure to perform, as well as the absence of legal excuse for the failure to perform.On whether a contract existed, we conclude that every part of a contract existed. Defendant initially engaged with Plaintiff regarding the offer and began negotiations (Exhibit P-001). Following negotiations, Defendant offered that Plaintiff would give Defendant $10,000 in exchange for the gold drill (Exhibit P-006). This offer was in very clear terms Defendant would give the Plaintiff "this golden drill once [Plaintiff] transfers [Defendant] [$]10k" (Exhibit P-006). Plaintiff's acceptance was clear: "I accept" (Exhibit P-007). Consideration was clear and explicit: Plaintiff would give $10k, and Defendant would give a golden drill in consideration for that payment. Intent to form a legal agreement was present and is established by the back-and-forth nature of the negotiation; such intent may be inferred "in civil cases, where an assumption of intent is given based on the circumstances provided" (Inknet v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 86; see also: Krisztie v. zko0 [2025] FCR 13, inferring intent from an image containing an offer to sell a rank through an auction; Lucaaasserole v. Naezaratheus et al. [2025] FCR 50, finding that "the Contracts Act only requires the demonstration of intent and not actual intent", and concluding that intent was shown by conversations between contract parties, even when actual intent by the defendant was to scam the plaintiff). Capacity is also clear; Plaintiff has been President of the Commonwealth of Redmont, while Defendant had sufficient playtime at all times relevant (see: Exhibit P-024). We thus conclude that a contract was indeed formed, as offer, acceptance, consideraiton, intent, and capacity are all present.
On examining failure to perform, the record is clear: Plaintiff paid Defendant $10,000, but Defendant gave Plaintiff an ordinary chest rather than a golden drill. After Plaintiff offered to reverse the transaction instead of suing, Defendant did not take up Plaintiff on the offer. Instead, Defendant pocketed the cash and did not deliver.
No legal excuse existed for the Defendant's behavior. The contract was valid, performance would have been possible had Defendant provided Plaintiff a golden drill, Plaintiff upheld all contractual obligations by paying Defendant the $10,000, and the contract was freely entered into. No plausible argument for frustration or force majeure exists.
As such, Defendant failed to perform their obligations on a valid and enforceable contract, without a legal excuse for doing so. This is a crystal clear breach of contract.
III.A.2. Defendant committed breach of contract against Co-Plaintiff TyTube_Yt
Next, we examine whether a contract was formed between Defendant and Co-Plaintiff TyTube_Yt. Then we will examine failure to perform, as well as the absence of legal excuse for the failure to perform.On whether a contract existed, examine whether every part of a contract existed. After negotiations (see: Exhibit P-016 and P-017) Co-Plainfiff offered that Co-Plaintiff would pay $4,000 to Defendant in exchange for the golden drill (Exhibit P-020). Defendant accepted (Exhibit P-021). Consideration here was obvious: it was money from the Co-Plaintiff in exchange for a golden drill from the defendant. Intent can be inferred by action (see: supra III.A.1); after walking a distance from the area where negotiations occurrred (see: Exhibit P-016 and P-017), Defendant instructed Co-Plaintiff to perform (Exhibit P-022) and dropped Co-Plaintiff a chest after Plaintiff paid Defendant $4,000 (Exhibit P-022 and P-023). Defendant had sufficient playtime at all times relevant (see: Exhibit P-024), while Co-Plaintiff also had sufficient playtime (see: Exhibit P-025). As we have offer, acceptance, consideration, intent, and capacity, a valid contract was formed.
On examining failure to perform, the record is clear: Co-Plaintiff paid Defendant the initial $4,000, but Defendant gave Co-Plaintiff an ordinary chest rather than a golden drill.
No legal excuse existed for the Defendant's behavior. The contract was valid, performance would have been possible had Defendant provided Co-Plaintiff a golden drill, Co-Plaintiff upheld all contractual obligations by paying Defendant the initial payment of $4,000, and the contract was freely entered into. No plausible argument for frustration or force majeure exists.
As such, Defendant again failed to perform their obligations on a valid and enforceable contract, without a legal excuse for doing so. This is, again, a crystal clear breach of contract.
III.A.3. Defendant committed breach of contract against Co-Plaintiff vaxx
Finally, we examine whether a contract was formed between Defendant and Co-Plaintiff vaxx. Then we will examine failure to perform, as well as the absence of legal excuse for the failure to perform.On whether a contract existed, examine whether every part of a contract existed. Defendant offered to provide Co-Plaintiff vaxx "this golden drill" in exchange for $10,000 (Exhibit P-013). Co-Plaintiff accepted the offer and paid the Defendant $10,000 (Exhibits P-014 and P-015). Consideration is clear; Co-Plaintiff would give up $10,000 and Defendant would give up one golden drill. Intent can be inferred by action (see: supra III.A.1); in this case, Plaintiff's performance of the obligation, combined with Defendant's dropping of a plain chest (see: Exhibit P-015), indicates both parties understood this to be binding. And both parties had capacity to enter into the contract; neither lacked playtime (see: Exhibit P-024 and Exhibit P-026). As we have offer, acceptance, consideration, intent, and capacity, a contract was formed between Co-Plaintiff and Defendant.
On examining failure to perform, the record is clear: Co-Plaintiff paid Defendant $10,000, but Defendant gave Co-Plaintiff an ordinary chest rather than a golden drill. Because breach of contract is a tort of strict liability, this is sufficient to meet the criterion of non-performance.
What's more legal excuse existed for the Defendant's behavior. The contract was valid, performance would have been possible had Defendant provided Co-Plaintiff a golden drill, Co-Plaintiff upheld all contractual obligations by paying Defendant the initial payment of $4,000, and the contract was freely entered into. No plausible argument for frustration or force majeure exists.
As such, Defendant again failed to perform their obligations on a valid and enforceable contract, without a legal excuse for doing so. This is, again, a crystal clear breach of contract.
III.A.4. Defendant Committed Breach of Contract against new co-Plaintiffs 396Vette and Kachuaa
Defendant entered into valid contracts with 396Vette and kachuaa, in a similar way to the contracts with the above parties. Defendant agreed to provide 396Vette with a golden drill in exchange for $10,000. 396Vette performed by paying Defendant $10,000, but Defendant breached the contract by failing to provide a golden drill. Defendant instead provided a chest labeled “Golden Drill.” Defendant also agreed to provide kachuaa with a golden drill in exchange for $11,000. kachuaa performed by paying Defendant $11,000, but Defendant breached the agreement by failing to provide a golden drill. Defendant instead provided a chest called “golden drill.”
This is clear material breach, which caused harm to these co-Plaintiffs, as Defendant failed to provide the essential element they had promised in consideration: the drills.
III.B. Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce
Under the Redmont Civil Code Act, Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce is a civil violation defined as follows:(RCCA, Part VI, Section 3).
Plaintiff, together with co-Plaintiffs, allege that Defendant committed Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce against them. As a golden drill is a kind of good, deception or misleading conduct in connection with the sale of, promotion of, or supply of golden drills warrants examination.
III.B.1. Defendant committed Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce against Plaintiff and both original Co-Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Multiman155 entered into a contract with Defendant after Defendant stated, "I, slapout, will give Multiman155 this Golden Drill once he transfers me 10k" (Exhibit P-007; supra III.A.1). This statement contained a deception: "this Golden Drill" was not actually a golden drill, but instead a mere chest. After Plaintiff provided Defendant $10,000, Defendant dropped Plaintiff a mere chest. Defendant acted surprised. But the staff team confirmed that, upon review of item drop logs, there was not a bug (Exhibit P-027).This reflects consciousness of guilt and an attempt to deflect and deceive. Defendant took the money and ran, after having deceived Plaintiff in the course of purportedly attempting to sell a drill. And the delivery of a plain chest, as if it were to suffice for a golden drill, makes it clear that the intent was plainly to deceive when considering that Defendant did not take any action to fix this.
By engaging in conduct that was misleading and deceptive towards Multiman155 in connection with the (promotion of a) sale/supply of a golden drill to Plaintiff, Defendant thus committed Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce against Plaintiff.
III.B.2. Defendant committed Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce against Co-Plaintiff TyTube_Yt
Co-Plaintiff TyTube_Yt entered into a contract with Defendant for Defendant to supply Plaintiff with a golden drill (see: supra, III.A.2). In particular, Defendant agreed to give Co-Plaintiff a golden drill after Co-Plaintiff paid $4,000 (an additional payment of $4,000 was to come after a golden drill were delivered). After negotiations, Co-Plaintiff paid Defendant, but Defendant gave Co-Plaintiff a plain chest rather than a golden drill.This was a deception on behalf of the Defendant. Because a golden drill held in hand is not distinguishable from a chest by a second party, and because Defendant had agreed to supply Co-Plaintiff with a golden drill, we must conclude that there was deliberate intent to mislead Co-Plaintiff. This is particularly notable inasmuch as the fact pattern between all three Plaintiffs is similar: the Defendant appears to have repeatedly scammed people, which goes to Defendant's intent.
By engaging in conduct that was misleading and deceiving in connection with Defendant's agreement to supply Co-Plaintiff TyTube_Yt a golden drill, Defendant committed Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce.
III.B.3. Defendant committed Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce against Co-Plaintiff Vaxx
Co-Plaintiff Vaxx paid Defendant $10,000 to execute a contract after defendant offered to provide Co-Plaintiff vaxx "this golden drill" in exchange for $10,000 (Exhibit P-013; supra, III.A.3). Defendant, however, had deceived Vaxx; the Defendant was not to actually deliver a golden drill, but instead a chest. Because a golden drill held in hand is not distinguishable from a chest by a second party, and because Defendant had agreed to supply Co-Plaintiff with a golden drill, we must conclude that there was deliberate intent to mislead Co-Plaintiff. This is particularly notable inasmuch as the fact pattern between all three Plaintiffs is similar: the Defendant appears to have repeatedly scammed people, which goes to Defendant's intent.By engaging in conduct that was misleading and deceiving in connection with Defendant's agreement to supply Co-Plaintiff Vaxx a golden drill, Defendant committed Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce.
III.B.4 Defendant committed Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce against the new parties (ElegantAlly, 396Vette, and kachuaa)
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Slapout engaged in misleading conduct in trade or commerce by representing, expressly or impliedly, that he was selling genuine golden drills. Plaintiffs further allege that these representations were made in connection with the sale or supply of goods, namely golden drills, and that Defendant’s conduct was misleading or deceptive because Plaintiffs did not receive genuine golden drills after payment. Instead, Plaintiffs received ordinary chests renamed or renamed as “Golden Drill”.This claim applies to all three newly added Plaintiffs. Defendant allegedly represented to 396Vette that he would provide a golden drill in exchange for $10,000, represented to kachuaa, that he would provide a golden drill in exchange for $11,000, and operated or maintained a chestshop that represented or appeared to represent to Ally that it was selling a golden drill. In each case, Defendant received money while Plaintiffs did not receive the represented item.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s conduct was likely to mislead reasonable players into believing that they were purchasing genuine golden drills. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendant’s conduct caused actual damages totaling at least $31,000, consisting of $10,000 lost by 396Vette, $11,000 lost by kachuaa, and $10,000 lost by Ally.
III.C. Misrepresentation
Under the Redmont Civil Code Act, Misrepresentation is defined as follows:(RCCA, Part VI, Section 2).
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant made false statements of material fact when he represented that he was selling genuine golden drills. Defendant represented to 396Vette that 396Vette would receive a golden drill after paying $10,000, Defendant represented to kachuaa that kachuaa would receive a golden drill after paying $11,000, Defendant represented to Multiman155 that Multiman155 would receive a golden drill after paying $10,000, Defendant represented to TyTube_Yt that TyTube_Yt would receive a golden drill after paying $4,000, and Defendant represented to Vaxx that Vaxx would receive a golden drill after paying $10,000. Those statements were false because Defendant did not provide genuine golden drills and instead provided renamed chests.
These (co-)Plaintiffs relied on Defendant’s representations when they paid Defendant. Those representations induced them to enter into the transactions, and they suffered damages when Defendant failed to deliver the promised items.
As to Ally, we in the alternative allege that Defendant’s chestshop labeling and/or presentation constituted a false representation that the chestshop sold a genuine golden drill, when the item actually provided was merely a renamed chest.
Defendant’s misrepresentations, we proffer, caused Plaintiffs’ losses directly or foreseeably.
III.D. Failure to Deliver Goods or Services
Under the Redmont Civil Code Act, the tort of Failure to Deliver Goods or Services is as follows:(RCCA, Part VI, Section 4).
This tort is a strict liability offense, carrying statutory penalties.
Defendant agreed to supply genuine golden drills and failed to deliver the goods he agreed to supply. 396Vette paid Defendant $10,000 in exchange for a golden drill, kachuaa paid Defendant $11,000 in exchange for a golden drill, Multiman155 paid $10,000 in exchange for a golden drill, Vaxx paid $10,000 in exchange for a golden drill, and TyTube_yt paid $4,000 as the first part of the transaction for a golden drill. Defendant did not deliver golden drills to any (co-)Plaintiff. Instead, Defendant delivered renamed chests, which were not the goods promised.
Plaintiffs further allege, in the alternative, that Ally’s chestshop transaction represented the sale of a golden drill and that Defendant failed to deliver the represented good. Ally was charged $10,000 through Defendant’s chestshop and received a chest renamed “golden drill,” not an actual golden drill.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant had no lawful excuse for failing to deliver the promised goods. Plaintiffs suffered damages because they paid money and received nonconforming items.
III.E. Conversion
The Redmont Civil Code Act defines the tort of Conversion as follows:(RCCA, Part VII, Section 7).
(Co-)Plaintiffs proffer that money, under the law, is a kind of property for purpose of this tort. It is something that can be owned by someone at a point in time, and it is quite well-recognized that depriving someone of their money can cause them economic harm.
In this case, (co-)Plaintiffs allege that Defendant wrongfully obtained and retained Plaintiffs’ money through deception and false promises.
Defendant represented to 396Vette that 396Vette would receive a golden drill after paying $10,000, Defendant represented to kachuaa that kachuaa would receive a golden drill after paying $11,000, Defendant represented to Multiman155 that Multiman155 would receive a golden drill after paying $10,000, Defendant represented to TyTube_Yt that TyTube_Yt would receive a golden drill after paying $4,000, and Defendant represented to Vaxx that Vaxx would receive a golden drill after paying $10,000. Defendant obtained or retained $10,000 from Ally through a transaction from a misleading chestshop.
In all of these cases, Defendant did not deliver a golden drill, but instead took the money and ran. In some, Defendant chose to ignore a co-Plaintiff in-game, cutting off contact and means by which to ask for funds back. In another, Defendant lied and asserted that Defendant as concerned about scams, and then ignored offers to reverse the transaction. All of this reflects consciousness of guilt, and demonstrates that the money was knowingly obtained by Defendant by deception while intending to keep the money for the Defendant.
Plaintiffs therefore allege that Defendant unlawfully converted Plaintiffs’ monetary property to his own use, harming Plaintiffs.
III.F. Unjust Enrichment
The Redmont Civil Code Act defines the tort of Unjust Enrichment as follows:(RCCA, Part X, Section 1)
(Co-)Plaintiffs allege that Defendant received and on benefits at Plaintiffs’ expense. Defendant received $10,000 from Multiman155, $4,000 fro TyTube_Yt, $10,000 from 396Vette, $11,000 from kachuaa/Six, and $10,000 from Ally. Defendant retained those funds despite failing to provide genuine golden drills.
There is no legal justification for Defendant to retain Plaintiffs’ money after providing only renamed chests. None. The central point of this tort is to prevent people from enriching themselves at the expense of others unjustly, and the behavior pattern laid out throughout the entire complaint clearly demonstrates that unjust enrichment has occurred.
This claim is pleaded both jointly and in the alternative to all the above claims.
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Plaintiff prays that the Court enter judgment providing the following relief:- Compensatory Damages: Plaintiff paid $10,000 to Defendant as did Co-Plaintiff Vaxx. Co-Plaintiff TyTube_Yt paid Defendant $4,000. New Co-Plaintiff ElegantAlly paid $10,000, new co-Plaintiff kachuaa paid $11,000, and new co-Plaintiff 396Vette paid $10,000. In total, this means that making Plaintiff and original co-Plaintiffs whole would take $24,000 plus $31,000 for the new co-Plaintiffs, for a total of $55,000 in compensatory damages. We ask that damages be equitably distributed among the Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiffs in proportion to the size of their loss.
- Treble Damages: The Redmont Civil Code Act allows treble damages to be collected in lieu of compensatory damages for the tort of Conversion. Should liability be found for conversion, we ask that all (co-)Plaintiffs on this complaint receive the treble damages, which would total $165,000.
- Punitive Damages: Under the RCCA, punitive damages may be awarded when "they are either authorised by statute or unless the conduct of the other party in causing the party’s harm is outrageous" (RCCA, Part III, 3(2)(a)). Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiffs jointly allege that the repeated pattern of taking money from good-faith would-be purchasers of golden drills is plainly outrageous. We also note that the civil violation of Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce explicitly permits civil penalties up to 250 civil penalty units per civil violation. Other torts alleged also permit additional penalties, such as Failure to Deliver Goods or Services carrying a penalty of up to 200 civil penalty units. As such, Plaintiff and original co-Plaintiffs pray for $75,000 in punitive damages for Misleading Conduct, while new co-Plaintiffs pray for an additional $75,000. This total of $150,000 in punitive damages for misleading conduct. Additionally, all (co-Plaintiffs) allege failure to deliver, which would bear an additional $120,000 in civil penalty units. Thus, a total of $270,000 in punitive damages should be awarded and distributed equally among the Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiffs.
- Nominal Damages: In the event that no other damages can be awarded by the Court, and only in this alternative, Plaintiff and co-Plaintiffs seek nominal damages in the amount of $7,500 each to acknowledge the harm done by Defendant to the corresponding parties.
- Legal Fees: Plaintiff seeks 30% of the total damages awarded as legal fees.
V. Evidence
See "Exhibit P-027 - Staff Ticket.pdf"
VI. Witness List
- Multiman155
- TyTube_Yt
- vaxx
- slapout
- Budgiebud (Mayor of Aventura)
- Scassany (Former Secretary of the Department of Education)
- Staff Team
- ElegantAlly
- 396Vette
- Aelia_Singl3heart
- SixAnemone9870
- Eenza
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 15 day of June 2026
Attachments
Last edited:
