Lawsuit: Pending MysticPhunky v. Culls [2025] FCR 114

[MysticPhunky]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

MysticPhunky
Plaintiff

v.

Culls
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

The Defendant knowingly participated in a public auction where the bid limit had been officially removed by a server staff member. The Defendant placed a bid of $1,000,000,000 RMD (One Billion Redmont Dollars) and has refused to honor the winning bid following the conclusion of the auction. This refusal constitutes a breach of a valid in-game contractual obligation under the laws and established commercial practices of the Commonwealth of Redmont, causing significant economic damages to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks full enforcement of the bid and any appropriate relief necessary to remedy the breach and uphold fair commerce in the Commonwealth.

I. PARTIES
1. MysticPhunky, Plaintiff, resident and lawful participant in the Commonwealth of Redmont’s economy.
2. Culls, Defendant, resident and participant in the Commonwealth and the bidder in the auction referenced in this matter.

II. FACTS
1. On November 2, 2025, the Plaintiff hosted a public auction in a recognized Commonwealth venue.
2. A server staff member publicly confirmed that there was “no longer a bid limit,” authorizing any lawful bid amount.
3. The Defendant placed a bid of $1,000,000,000 RMD, clearly visible in public chat, with multiple witnesses present.
4. The Defendant’s bid was the highest bid and therefore the winning bid.
5. The Defendant has since refused to pay or comply with the auction outcome.
6. The Plaintiff has suffered economic damages as a result of the Defendant’s failure to honor the binding auction terms.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant’s refusal to pay the winning bid constitutes a breach of RP contract under Commonwealth civil law.
2. Such refusal undermines market integrity and damages the Plaintiff financially.
3. Enforcement is necessary to uphold Redmont commercial law and prevent future abuse of auctions.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following:
1. Full payment of $1,000,000,000 RMD by the Defendant.
2. If the Defendant cannot satisfy the debt in full:
a. A court-ordered asset recovery, including but not limited to:
- All banked funds held by the Defendant
- Real estate and land holdings
- Business ownership stakes
- Vehicles or other valuable property
b. Said assets to be either:
A) directly transferred to the Plaintiff, OR
B) seized and auctioned to satisfy the owed amount
3. Any additional penalties or relief deemed just and necessary by the Court.

Evidence & Witnesses Attached:

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and acknowledge that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 2nd day of November 2025

Spoiler: P-001

https://imgur.com/a/XCtrNn1

Spoiler: P-002

https://imgur.com/a/pjCqFy7

Spoiler: Witness List

1. TrueDarklander
2. vvirtue_
3. Noobly20932

 

[MysticPhunky]

*i would like to state this is a REAL lawsuit not a joke so please take this seriously, if i cant get the billion dollars im happy with any money i can get from all his assets.

 

[ameslap]

Writ of Summons

@Culls is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Mysticphunky v. Culls [2025] FCR 114

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.

 

[BrownBerry]

Your Honor,

MZLD is representing Culls.

 

[ameslap]

The Defense has 48 to file their answer to the complaint.

 

[BrownBerry]

Answer to Complaint

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

MysticPhunky
Plaintiff

v.

Culls
Defendant

---

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT​

1. Defendant AFFIRMS paragraph 1 of the Complaint.
2. Defendant DENIES paragraph 2 of the Complaint. The statement was not made by a "server staff member" but by Plaintiff in their capacity as auctioneer.
3. Defendant AFFIRMS that Defendant made the statement in chat, but DENIES it was a legally binding bid.
4. Defendant DENIES paragraph 4 of the Complaint. The statement made by Defendant did not constitute a bid.
5. Defendant NEITHER CONFIRMS NOR DENIES paragraph 5 of the Complaint. There is no legally binding contract between the parties.
6. Defendant NEITHER CONFIRMS NOR DENIES paragraph 6 of the Complaint. Defendant may have suffered harm, but there is no legal wrong (as there is no contract).

---

II. DEFENCES​

A. There was no intent to create legal relations​

There must be "a clear intention to create legal obligations for the contract to be valid." (§4(2)(d) of the Contracts Act). A contract without this element is not a contract at all. Clearly, from the allegations in the Complaint, Culls had no intention to be bound by this bid. No reasonable person would understand Culls' message to constitute a binding bid. It was obviously a joke. No person or entity in Redmont (including the Government) has the ability to pay $1,000,000,000. It is not even within the realm of possible. On that basis, there is clearly no contract between Plaintiff and Defendant. The case fails.

B. Plaintiff lacks standing​

Defendant will introduce evidence that Plaintiff sold the items at issue to kukkiNekko for $5. That's right. Plaintiff didn't even deliver the goods to Defendant; that says all anyone needs to know about this case. It is a fishing expedition from start to end (if that wasn't already clear from the $1bn in damages claimed).

Since Plaintiff has not delivered the goods in the auction to Defendant, they have breached the contract they claim exists. The fact that Plaintiff didn't deliver the goods is conclusive evidence that not even they believed the bid was legally enforceable, or that there was any kind of legal relationship between the parties. But Plaintiff's failure to comply with the alleged contract also, quite clearly, prevents Plaintiff from having standing to sue. They have not lose possession of the goods (that are supposedly worth $1,000,000,000). They have suffered no harm.

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 2nd day of November 2025.

 

[BrownBerry]

Motion

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

Your Honor,

The defences stated in the Answer are overwhelming. This case cannot possibly succeed. It should be dismissed under Rule 5.5 (failure to state a claim). The facts alleged in the Complaint, that Culls sent a message saying "$1,000,000,000"; cannot form a contract because there is a total lack of intent to form legal relations. Defendant should not be burdened with having to defend this obviously frivolous case.

---

On a separate note, when Your Honor dismisses this case, Defendant would seek legal fees at the full 30% rate. Plaintiff ought to be punished for filing frivolous lawsuits with massive numbers. A plaintiff who is trying to win big must also be prepared to lose big. Reward must come with risk. Even if the Court believes 30% is too high, an award at 10% or even 5% would be appropriate.

It would be very regrettable if Redmont took after some real-world legal systems, where Plaintiffs are encouraged to make up big numbers that raise eyebrows, rather than making a good-faith calculation of damages. A high award of legal fees is required to maintain Redmont's status in this regard.

 

[MysticPhunky]

Accepting this deal

 

[MysticPhunky]

case closed kings

 

[ameslap]

View attachment 66047
Accepting this deal

The Plaintiff may be accepting this settlement, but this Court does not and will be rejecting this settlement agreement.

The Court will use a multiple-prong test to determine if a settlement agreement is valid, these tests include:

1. Ambiguity or Vagueness: Settlements must be clear and complete. (i.e. they should always include payment amounts, timeline, and conditions).
2. Mutual Consent: Named parties must agree to the settlement.
3. Coercion, Fraud, or Duress: Settlements must not be reached through threats, deception, or undue pressure.
4. Unconscionability or Extreme Unfairness: Settlements cannot be grossly one-sided or would result in injustice.
5. Contrary to Law or Public Policy: Settlements cannot violate statues, regulations, or public policy.
6. Beyond Court's Jurisdiction: All Settlements must be able to be enforced through the court (only after they are already filed).

This settlement does not pass these tests:

1. Coercion, Fraud, or Duress: Given the actual deal submitted, the Defendant's Counsel said "I'd be very worried if I were you; this could bankrupt you." The Court finds that there is likely hood that the Defendant's Counsel is using a Motion to Dismiss, even going as far as requesting a range of possible damages to be given, to cause the Plaintiff undue pressure to accept a deal.

2. Lack of Mutual Consent: There is no proof that the Defendant has agreed to the Settlement.

3. Extreme Unfairness: Was there any thought given to the actual Defendant? Exchanging legal fees for dropping the case does absolutely nothing to the Defendant. This is extremely unfair especially given that Counsel for the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which may yet be successful!

This Court is fine with settlements, and encourages the parties to continue to work towards one. But this is not it.

The Motion to Dismiss will be ruled on shortly. Discovery will now open and last 5 days unless either party would like to end it early.

 

[MysticPhunky]

i would like to end it early, i would also like to state their was a typo in my statement i was meant to say that i increased the bid limit to infinite not an admin *

 

[ameslap]

Motion

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

Your Honor,

The defences stated in the Answer are overwhelming. This case cannot possibly succeed. It should be dismissed under Rule 5.5 (failure to state a claim). The facts alleged in the Complaint, that Culls sent a message saying "$1,000,000,000"; cannot form a contract because there is a total lack of intent to form legal relations. Defendant should not be burdened with having to defend this obviously frivolous case.

---

On a separate note, when Your Honor dismisses this case, Defendant would seek legal fees at the full 30% rate. Plaintiff ought to be punished for filing frivolous lawsuits with massive numbers. A plaintiff who is trying to win big must also be prepared to lose big. Reward must come with risk. Even if the Court believes 30% is too high, an award at 10% or even 5% would be appropriate.

It would be very regrettable if Redmont took after some real-world legal systems, where Plaintiffs are encouraged to make up big numbers that raise eyebrows, rather than making a good-faith calculation of damages. A high award of legal fees is required to maintain Redmont's status in this regard.

Motion Denied.
The exact quote from the rules:

Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim)​

A Motion to Dismiss may be filed 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.

I believe that counsel is confusing a Claim for Relief and a Prayer for Relief. The claims are listed (albeit without citing a specific violation of the law). Allow me to inform Counsels what is what:

Claim for Relief: Why facts rise to a claim, backed by the law or other legal claim.

Prayer for Relief: What the party is asking the court to do.

Additionally, I will allow this case to at least proceed through Discovery at a minimum. If there is a lack of evidence or claims the Defense is welcomed to resubmit their Motion to Dismiss.

 

[BrownBerry]

Motion Denied.
The exact quote from the rules:

I believe that counsel is confusing a Claim for Relief and a Prayer for Relief. The claims are listed (albeit without citing a specific violation of the law). Allow me to inform Counsels what is what:

Claim for Relief: Why facts rise to a claim, backed by the law or other legal claim.

Prayer for Relief: What the party is asking the court to do.

Additionally, I will allow this case to at least proceed through Discovery at a minimum. If there is a lack of evidence or claims the Defense is welcomed to resubmit their Motion to Dismiss.

Motion

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

Your Honor,

With respect, I do not believe I have confused Plaintiff's Prayer for Relief with their Claim for Relief. My Motion to Dismiss was perhaps a bit unclear, so I'll repeat it here.

Plaintiff's Claim for Relief is that:
1. Defendant made a bid in this auction for $1,000,000,000.
2. Defendant's bid constituted a binding contract.
3. Defendant has not paid $1,000,000,000.
4. Defendant is liable for breach of contract.

My Motion to Dismiss is simple. Assuming the facts are true (and Defendant admits the "$1,000,000,000" statement was made), those facts cannot support the claim for relief. A $1 billion bid—on its face—cannot seriously create a binding contract. There is clearly no intent to create legal relations in a $1 billion bid. Your Honor, Defendant submits that the lack of intent to create legal relations is evident o its face. No matter what evidence Plaintiff raises at trial, this claim cannot succeed. Plaintiff, Defendant, and everyone participating in that auction knew that $1,000,000,000 is many times the GDP of Redmont. Not even the Commonwealth could pay such a bid. It was clearly unserious. Defendant also reminds the Court that there are no DOC rules applicable to this case (although it is unlikely that would change anything); this wasn't a DOC auction. Only ordinary principles of contract law apply.

The Claim for Relief has:

insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge

A $1,000,000,000 bid cannot sustain a claim in breach of contract. Plaintiff's case fails at this stage.

Your Honor, our Motion to Dismiss is within the purview of Rule 5.5, and this case should be dismissed on that basis.

 

[BrownBerry]

The Plaintiff may be accepting this settlement, but this Court does not and will be rejecting this settlement agreement.

The Court will use a multiple-prong test to determine if a settlement agreement is valid, these tests include:

1. Ambiguity or Vagueness: Settlements must be clear and complete. (i.e. they should always include payment amounts, timeline, and conditions).
2. Mutual Consent: Named parties must agree to the settlement.
3. Coercion, Fraud, or Duress: Settlements must not be reached through threats, deception, or undue pressure.
4. Unconscionability or Extreme Unfairness: Settlements cannot be grossly one-sided or would result in injustice.
5. Contrary to Law or Public Policy: Settlements cannot violate statues, regulations, or public policy.
6. Beyond Court's Jurisdiction: All Settlements must be able to be enforced through the court (only after they are already filed).

This settlement does not pass these tests:

1. Coercion, Fraud, or Duress: Given the actual deal submitted, the Defendant's Counsel said "I'd be very worried if I were you; this could bankrupt you." The Court finds that there is likely hood that the Defendant's Counsel is using a Motion to Dismiss, even going as far as requesting a range of possible damages to be given, to cause the Plaintiff undue pressure to accept a deal.

2. Lack of Mutual Consent: There is no proof that the Defendant has agreed to the Settlement.

3. Extreme Unfairness: Was there any thought given to the actual Defendant? Exchanging legal fees for dropping the case does absolutely nothing to the Defendant. This is extremely unfair especially given that Counsel for the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which may yet be successful!

This Court is fine with settlements, and encourages the parties to continue to work towards one. But this is not it.

The Motion to Dismiss will be ruled on shortly. Discovery will now open and last 5 days unless either party would like to end it early.

Motion

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

Your Honor, Defendant asks you to reconsider the refusal of the settlement agreement between the parties.

It is not clear to Defendant the legal basis for these tests of a settlement agreement's validity. Defendant's counsel does not know of any precedent or legislation in support. If nothing else, Defendant would be interested in knowing the bases for these tests: they seem to have very significant precedential value.

Defendant believes that where there is a clear agreement to settle between the parties, the Court must accept it. If a party takes issue with the unfairness of a settlement agreement, it is for that litigant to raise (either at the time, or by ordinary action in contract). It is not for the Court to insert itself where both parties agree to settle. The constitutional role of the Court is to settle disputes between litigants: there is no dispute here; the parties have come to an agreement.

Even if the Court does have such a jurisdiction over settlement agreements, the Court should accept this agreement:

1. The statement that "this could bankrupt you" has been unintentionally taken out of context by Plaintiff. In context, the statement refers to the case as a whole. Even at 10% legal fees, no person could pay (since it is many times more than the currency in circulation). It is a perfectly acceptable statement of fact to remark that 30% (or even 1%) of $1 billion would bankrupt Plaintiff (or anyone). My job as a lawyer for Culls is to advocate for their interests. I put Culls' interests above that of Plaintiff. In settlement negotiations, I must negotiate to Culls' benefit; that means putting pressure on Plaintiff. I have not applied "undue" pressure.

2. Defendant confirms that we agree to the settlement. Defendant offered to settle, and Plaintiff accepted it. That agreement now binds Plaintiff.

3. Your Honor, I do not understand your point. If Defendant succeeds at verdict, then they will only be entitled to legal fees. I'm not sure what other monies could be claimed from Plaintiff in the settlement negotiations. And indeed, Defendant certainly gets something out of this deal: they don't have to pay me/MZLD any legal fees. Ultimately the transfer of wealth in this agreement is from Plaintiff to Defendant, since if Defendant loses, they will be liable to MZLD for legal fees. Under this settlement agreement,

 

[ameslap]

Motion

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

Your Honor,

With respect, I do not believe I have confused Plaintiff's Prayer for Relief with their Claim for Relief. My Motion to Dismiss was perhaps a bit unclear, so I'll repeat it here.

Plaintiff's Claim for Relief is that:
1. Defendant made a bid in this auction for $1,000,000,000.
2. Defendant's bid constituted a binding contract.
3. Defendant has not paid $1,000,000,000.
4. Defendant is liable for breach of contract.

My Motion to Dismiss is simple. Assuming the facts are true (and Defendant admits the "$1,000,000,000" statement was made), those facts cannot support the claim for relief. A $1 billion bid—on its face—cannot seriously create a binding contract. There is clearly no intent to create legal relations in a $1 billion bid. Your Honor, Defendant submits that the lack of intent to create legal relations is evident o its face. No matter what evidence Plaintiff raises at trial, this claim cannot succeed. Plaintiff, Defendant, and everyone participating in that auction knew that $1,000,000,000 is many times the GDP of Redmont. Not even the Commonwealth could pay such a bid. It was clearly unserious. Defendant also reminds the Court that there are no DOC rules applicable to this case (although it is unlikely that would change anything); this wasn't a DOC auction. Only ordinary principles of contract law apply.

The Claim for Relief has:

A $1,000,000,000 bid cannot sustain a claim in breach of contract. Plaintiff's case fails at this stage.

Your Honor, our Motion to Dismiss is within the purview of Rule 5.5, and this case should be dismissed on that basis.

Counsel, I believe you are putting your own interpretation of the Claims for Relief in place of what is written. The exact quote is:

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant’s refusal to pay the winning bid constitutes a breach of RP contract under Commonwealth civil law.
2. Such refusal undermines market integrity and damages the Plaintiff financially.
3. Enforcement is necessary to uphold Redmont commercial law and prevent future abuse of auctions.

You can argue that the Claim is invalid with supporting evidence that is brought through discovery all you wish. I will not change my mind on this motion at this time. There may indeed be evidence or testimony that the Plaintiff could bring up, that is what discovery is for.

I'm open to reevaluating a Motion to Dismiss after Discovery if it is warranted. Motion to Reconsider Denied.

Motion

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

Your Honor, Defendant asks you to reconsider the refusal of the settlement agreement between the parties.

It is not clear to Defendant the legal basis for these tests of a settlement agreement's validity. Defendant's counsel does not know of any precedent or legislation in support. If nothing else, Defendant would be interested in knowing the bases for these tests: they seem to have very significant precedential value.

Defendant believes that where there is a clear agreement to settle between the parties, the Court must accept it. If a party takes issue with the unfairness of a settlement agreement, it is for that litigant to raise (either at the time, or by ordinary action in contract). It is not for the Court to insert itself where both parties agree to settle. The constitutional role of the Court is to settle disputes between litigants: there is no dispute here; the parties have come to an agreement.

Even if the Court does have such a jurisdiction over settlement agreements, the Court should accept this agreement:

1. The statement that "this could bankrupt you" has been unintentionally taken out of context by Plaintiff. In context, the statement refers to the case as a whole. Even at 10% legal fees, no person could pay (since it is many times more than the currency in circulation). It is a perfectly acceptable statement of fact to remark that 30% (or even 1%) of $1 billion would bankrupt Plaintiff (or anyone). My job as a lawyer for Culls is to advocate for their interests. I put Culls' interests above that of Plaintiff. In settlement negotiations, I must negotiate to Culls' benefit; that means putting pressure on Plaintiff. I have not applied "undue" pressure.

2. Defendant confirms that we agree to the settlement. Defendant offered to settle, and Plaintiff accepted it. That agreement now binds Plaintiff.

3. Your Honor, I do not understand your point. If Defendant succeeds at verdict, then they will only be entitled to legal fees. I'm not sure what other monies could be claimed from Plaintiff in the settlement negotiations. And indeed, Defendant certainly gets something out of this deal: they don't have to pay me/MZLD any legal fees. Ultimately the transfer of wealth in this agreement is from Plaintiff to Defendant, since if Defendant loses, they will be liable to MZLD for legal fees. Under this settlement agreement,

Motion Denied. This is new precedent. There are multiple reasons that I have decided to create such a precedent, not all of which are relevant here:

• Judicial Duty to Uphold the Law. We exist to interpret the law, not validate agreements that conflict with it.
• Judiciary Role Under Article 13: Article 13 of the Constitution gives citizens the right to be treated equal before and under the law.
• Preserving the Court's Integrity: Settlement agreements that come before the court are ordered by the court. The Court has an interest in ensuring these orders are legitimate, enforceable, and consistent with legal standards.

Now onto the agreement in place:

1. All this court has is what is given by the parties. If context matters, than it should have been submitted.
2. By Defendant, I mean Culls themself. Can we confirm that they agree?
3. There are many things that can happen at a trial, including counter-suits that could provide prayers of relief to the Defendant. The settlement that was submitted to this court seemed only to be to the benefit of the Attorney, not the Client they are representing.

The Court will accept a settlement if they do not conflict with any of the tests that this court has listed prior.

i would like to end it early, i would also like to state their was a typo in my statement i was meant to say that i increased the bid limit to infinite not an admin *

@BrownBerry, would you also like to end Discovery early?
@MysticPhunky You may amend your complaint to reflect this.

 

[BrownBerry]

Your Honor,

Defendant asks for a sidebar.