Lawsuit: Pending Oakridge Community Bank & RiggoSoft v. dimitre977 [2026] FCR 9

R

RiggoSoft

Citizen
Oakridge Resident
Commerce Department
Change Maker
RiggoSoft
RiggoSoft
Economist
Joined
Aug 21, 2025
Messages
238

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Oakridge Community Bank
&
RiggoSoft
Plaintiffs

v.

dimitre977
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiffs complains against the Defendant as follows:

Written Statement

The defendant (dimitre977) has violated their employment agreement with the plaintiff (Oakridge Community Bank) and has ultimately caused extreme amount of damage to the plaintiff that has resulted in the loss of the plaintiff's tax-exempt status with the Department of Commerce and many other damages.

Additionally the defendant (dimite977) has maliciously alleged that the plaintiff (RiggoSoft) had committed misrepresentation in the discussions regarding the employment of the defendant.
Click to expand...

I. Parties
1. Oakridge Community Bank (Co-Plaintiff)
2. dimitre977 (Defendant)
3. RiggoSoft (Co-Plaintiff, Chief Executive Officer prior to defendant's appointment, referred to as successor)
4. DiehardDave (Potential customer of the Plaintiff)

II. Facts

All dates are formatted mm/dd/yyyy and times are formatted 12:00 in the Eastern Standard Time time zone
1. On 12/22/2025 at 1:34 PM the defendant contacts the plaintiff regarding a job listing posted by the plaintiff regarding the role of Chief Executive Officer of the plaintiff.
2. The defendant and the plaintiff continue to talk about the job the defendant is inquiring for, the requirements and potential for compensation.
3. On 12/22/2025 at 7:22 PM the defendant asks "Ok is the bank in any financial trouble and do I have to take care of the government aspect?"
4. On 12/22/2025 at 7:31 PM the plaintiff responds "Yes you have to take care of the government aspect"
5. The defendant and the plaintiff keep discussing the conditions of the job and the specifics of the agreement.
6. On 12/23/2025 at 2:12 PM the plaintiff sends the defendant a file titled "OCB CEO Employment(2).pdf" which contains the employment agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant.
7. On 12/23/2025 at 2:29 PM the defendant sends back the employment agreement with their signature
8. On 12/23/2025 at 2:34 PM RiggoSoft on behalf of Oakridge Community Bank and himself as the successor Chief Executive Officer sign the agreement and send it back to the defendant.
9. RiggoSoft begins sending all documents required by the defendant as specified within the agreement
10. On 12/23/2025 at 3:05 PM RiggoSoft transfer the in game DB to the defendant and completes their contractual obligations.
12. On 12/27/2025 at 8:23 PM the defendant opens a ticket with Department of Commerce
13. On 12/28/2025 at 12:37 AM the defendant is informed by flooristired on behalf of the Department of Commerce that there were compliance issues.
14. On 12/28/2025 at 4:11 AM the defendant says in the ticket with the Department of Commerce "I got lied to bro said the company had no legal issues"
16. On 12/25/2025 at 4:14 AM the defendant says in the same ticket with the Department of Commerce "Sorry not legal problems[...] I asked them to be clear with all the issues and never heard about this otherwise I wouldn't have bought it" (For context and clarity reasons the defendant had never purchased any part of the bank from the co-plaintiff RiggoSoft nor was he given any ownership with his employment agreement)
17. On 1/7/2026 the plaintiff's monthly financial reports are due to the Department of Commerce for compliance. These reports are for the month of December.
18. On 1/7/2026 the defendant does not submit the required monthly financial report due to the Department of Commerce
19. On 1/18/2026 at 6:17 PM the Department of Commerce informs sends a message stating "@Dimitre just letting you know that OCB is now behind 3 months on financial reporting for November, December, and January as a heads up, OCB is likely at risk of your tax exemption status being suspended by the DOC a week from this notice"
20. At 6:18 PM the defendant responds with "Ok" acknowledging they have seen the message and understand the notice.
21. The defendant does not inform shareholders or board members of the risk that the bank is in regarding its tax exemption status.
22. On 1/20/2026 at 11:35 AM DiehardDave a potential customer of the plaintiff asks regarding if they may open a company account with the plaintiff for the company The Royal Institute
23. The defendant responds at 11:35 AM with "No cannot"
24. The potential customer asks "why?" at 11:35 AM
25. The defendant responds at 11:40 AM with "We aren't taking any new accounts" in a separate message they say "I was lied to when I first joined as the CEO"
26. The potential customer asks "[...] when you'd be open to new accounts" at 11:44 AM
27. The defendant responds with "Wont' be" at 11:45 AM
28. The potential customer asks "indefinitely?" at 11:45 AM
29. The defendant closes the ticket at 11:46 AM
30. On 1/20/2026 at 11:52 AM RiggoSoft, acting on behalf of the board of directors of the plaintiff, posts a motion to remove the defendant from the position of Chief Executive Officer. As the sole director of the board of directors the motion passes and the defendant is removed from the position.
31. On 1/20/2026 at 11:52 AM RiggoSoft, acting on behalf of the board of directors of the plaintiff, informs the defendant that they are relieved of their duties as Chief Executive Officer.
32. On 1/20/2026 at 11:52 AM the defendant responds in the discord thread where the motion to remove happened and sends "Nice", and sends "You lied to me I just want you to acknowledge you did and I’ll move on with my day"


III. Claims for Relief

Count #1 Breach of Contract (Part VI §1 according to Redmont Civil Code Act)

The defendant has violated their employment agreement with the plaintiff (Oakridge Community Bank). The defendant had willfully signed an employment contract with the plaintiff on 12/23/2025 that outlined all contractual obligations to the defendant that included but were not limited to banking, approval and denial of loans, and government compliance.

Since the time the defendant was employed with the bank the defendant had not allowed potential customers to deposit money into the bank violating their agreement with the plaintiff. Additionally the defendant had not submitted the required monthly report to the Department of Commerce that was due to them on 1/7/2026 for the month of December specifically violating their agreement with the plaintiff.


Count #2 Failure to Deliver Goods or Services (Part VI §4 according to Redmont Civil Code Act)

As established in Count #1 the defendant was hired by the defendant to become the new Chief Executive Officer of the plaintiff (Oakridge Community Bank). In that agreement the defendant had agreed to all duties of the Chief Executive Officer that included remaining compliant with the Department of Commerce.

By the defendant not submitting the required monthly financial report to the Department of Commerce the defendant has failed to deliver the service of maintaining compliance on behalf of the plaintiff (Oakridge Community Bank) that they had agreed to in their employment agreement.


Count #3 Negligence (Part XII §3 according to Redmont Civil Code Act)

The defendant had agreed to be hired as the Chief Executive Officer of the plaintiff (Oakridge Community Bank) and had been bestowed the duty to act and make decisions on behalf of the plaintiff to keep them compliant with the Department of Commerce as established in count #1.

The defendant had neglected this duty to keep the plaintiff (Oakridge Community Bank) compliant with the Department of Commerce.


Count #4 Malicious Allegation (Part XII §5 according to Redmont Civil Code Act)

The defendant in multiple instances has told individuals that the plaintiff (RiggoSoft) had lied to them. When they mean lie they are referring to the defendant lying about the bank's condition and simultaneously alleging that the plaintiff (RiggoSoft) had committed misrepresentation (Part VI §2 according to Redmont Civil Code Act)

Specifically the defendant had told a potential customer of the bank DiehardDave that RiggoSoft had lied to them as established in fact #16. The defendant had also alleged this in a discord channel open to all members of the board of directors of the bank in fact #23.


Count #5 Slander (Part V §3 according to Redmont Civil Code Act)

The defendant had told individuals multiple times that the plaintiff (RiggoSoft) had lied to them about the bank's condition and offers this as an excuse for them neglecting their duties. The defendant tells individuals this as it is a proven fact although the plaintiff (RiggoSoft) had not lied to them.

Specifically the defendant had told a potential customer of the bank DiehardDave that RiggoSoft had lied to them as established in fact #16. The defendant had also alleged this in a discord channel open to all members of the board of directors of the bank in fact #23.

IV. Prayer for Relief

1. $40,000 in Punitive Damages for the defendant violating their contract with the plaintiff. Paid to Oakridge Community Bank
2. $20,000 in Punitive Damages for the defendant failing to deliver the services they were contracted to do. Paid to Oakridge Community Bank
3. $60,000 in Punitive Damages for the defendant's negligence and neglect of their actions that has ultimately lost the plaintiff's tax exempt status. Paid to Oakridge Community Bank
4. $20,000 in Punitive Damages for the defendant's malicious allegations against the plaintiff. Paid to RiggoSoft
5. $20,000 in Punitive Damages for the defendant's slander against the plaintiff. Paid to RiggoSoft
6. $2,500 in Compensatory Damages to repay the plaintiff the compensation given to the defendant for the duties they were obligated to do that were not fulfilled. Paid to Oakridge Community Bank.
7. $7,500 in Nominal Damages if no other damages are awarded. $3,750 awarded to RiggoSoft, $3,750 awarded to Oakridge Community Bank.
8. 30% of all damages awarded as Legal Fees. Paid to RiggoSoft.

V. Evidence

Will be attached after post is sent

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 12 day of Feburary 2026

 
1770948842415.png
Attached, transcript-closed-0024.html.pdf
Attached, signedOCBCEOEmployment.pdf
Attached, dim_06_page_1[1].html.pdf
1770949498764.png
1770949553376.png
 

Attachments

Under what authority do you purportedly represent Oakridge Comm. Bank?
 
I am serving as the interim CEO of OCB for the time being under direction of the board of directors.
Muggy21 said:
Under what authority do you purportedly represent Oakridge Comm. Bank?
Click to expand...
 
RiggoSoft said:
I am serving as the interim CEO of OCB for the time being under direction of the board of directors.
Click to expand...

The Court rejects that premise. The Legal Entity Act § 2 (1)(d) clearly requires said change be memorialized. That change isn't made, thus you are not the Interim CEO of Oakridge Comm. Bank.

Furthermore, under a reading most favourable to the Bank, only the CEO or the Board may initiate an action.

@RiggoSoft You have 48 Hours to demonstrate that you were made the interim-CEO by your Board. It must be timestamped and the Docket must be updated.

You're ordered under pain of Contempt.
 
Muggy21 said:
The Court rejects that premise. The Legal Entity Act § 2 (1)(d) clearly requires said change be memorialized. That change isn't made, thus you are not the Interim CEO of Oakridge Comm. Bank.

Furthermore, under a reading most favourable to the Bank, only the CEO or the Board may initiate an action.

@RiggoSoft You have 48 Hours to demonstrate that you were made the interim-CEO by your Board. It must be timestamped and the Docket must be updated.

You're ordered under pain of Contempt.
Click to expand...
Ok
 
IMG_0909.png


There you are your honor
 
Muggy21 said:
5:32 today?
Click to expand...
Yes your honor I didn’t know we had to have that it writing. But besides that the agreement with the defendant allows the board of directors to take action on behalf of the bank against the defendant so I would have had the ability to represent the bank regardless in this complaint additionally I am als a co plaintiff for counts 4&5
 

Court Order


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order to Show Cause - Finding of Perjury and Contempt.

ORDER DRAFT ============================================
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Finding of Perjury and Contempt.


On February 12th, 2026 at 9:13PM EST, Attorney RiggoSoft filed a complaint with Plaintiffs "RiggoSoft" and "Oakridge Community Bank" On initial review, the Complaint conforms with the style guide, appears to be non-frivolous, and outlines several plausible legal claims; The tenacity of those claims is yet to be adjuged, the Court simply states that said claims aren't outlandish.


On February 13th, 2026 at 1:45pm, Judge Mug requested proof of representation (authority to represent) from Attorney RiggoSoft. One minute later, Riggosoft plainly stated "I am serving as the interim CEO of OCB" (#4).

However, at 5:32pm EST, Riggosoft posted an image of a corporate resolution stating that the Board had made him interim CEO at 5:31pm EST. If RiggoSoft were the CEO of OCB at the time he proffered it (at 2/13/26 @ 1:45pm EST), he'd have no need to have the board commit to a resolution AFTER such a statement.


WHEREFORE, the Federal Court submits to the Plaintiff's response as follows:
  1. The Court finds that Attorney RiggoSoft, having made statements under penalty of perjury on February 13th, 2026 at 1:45pm EST regarding his status as interim CEO of Oakridge Community Bank, committed perjury by affirming a position he did not possess he claimed at the moment of his sworn statement.
  2. Said perjury constitutes Contempt of Court and is grossly inappropriate and is a stain on the legal profession.
THEREFORE, the Federal Court finds:
  1. RiggoSoft GUILTY of Perjury x1.
  2. RiggoSoft GUILTY of Contempt of Court.
  3. that RiggoSoft's conduct is an affront to the standards expected of Counselors before the Courts. A conduct strike shall be issued.
The Court will not tolerate nor condone statements made under penalty of perjury that deviate from factual accuracy, however minor they may appear. To permit such conduct would be to permit the systematic erosion of the Court's authority and the integrity of the judicial process itself. RiggoSoft's deliberate misrepresentation, though concerning a matter he may have deemed ancillary, represents a direct affront to the administration of justice and to the rule of law upon which this nation's legal system depends.


The findings and sanctions imposed herein reflect this Court's commitment to preserving the sanctity of oaths and ensuring that all who appear before the bench understand that truthfulness is not a matter of degree but an absolute and non-negotiable requirement.

==========================================================

@RiggoSoft, you have 48 Hours to show why the Court should not proceed with the above order draft. You may retain counsel to this affect. This case will not proceed until you've responded.


So ordered,
Judge Mug

 
Muggy21 said:

Court Order


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order to Show Cause - Finding of Perjury and Contempt.

ORDER DRAFT ============================================
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Finding of Perjury and Contempt.


On February 12th, 2026 at 9:13PM EST, Attorney RiggoSoft filed a complaint with Plaintiffs "RiggoSoft" and "Oakridge Community Bank" On initial review, the Complaint conforms with the style guide, appears to be non-frivolous, and outlines several plausible legal claims; The tenacity of those claims is yet to be adjuged, the Court simply states that said claims aren't outlandish.


On February 13th, 2026 at 1:45pm, Judge Mug requested proof of representation (authority to represent) from Attorney RiggoSoft. One minute later, Riggosoft plainly stated "I am serving as the interim CEO of OCB" (#4).

However, at 5:32pm EST, Riggosoft posted an image of a corporate resolution stating that the Board had made him interim CEO at 5:31pm EST. If RiggoSoft were the CEO of OCB at the time he proffered it (at 2/13/26 @ 1:45pm EST), he'd have no need to have the board commit to a resolution AFTER such a statement.


WHEREFORE, the Federal Court submits to the Plaintiff's response as follows:
  1. The Court finds that Attorney RiggoSoft, having made statements under penalty of perjury on February 13th, 2026 at 1:45pm EST regarding his status as interim CEO of Oakridge Community Bank, committed perjury by affirming a position he did not possess he claimed at the moment of his sworn statement.
  2. Said perjury constitutes Contempt of Court and is grossly inappropriate and is a stain on the legal profession.
THEREFORE, the Federal Court finds:
  1. RiggoSoft GUILTY of Perjury x1.
  2. RiggoSoft GUILTY of Contempt of Court.
  3. that RiggoSoft's conduct is an affront to the standards expected of Counselors before the Courts. A conduct strike shall be issued.
The Court will not tolerate nor condone statements made under penalty of perjury that deviate from factual accuracy, however minor they may appear. To permit such conduct would be to permit the systematic erosion of the Court's authority and the integrity of the judicial process itself. RiggoSoft's deliberate misrepresentation, though concerning a matter he may have deemed ancillary, represents a direct affront to the administration of justice and to the rule of law upon which this nation's legal system depends.


The findings and sanctions imposed herein reflect this Court's commitment to preserving the sanctity of oaths and ensuring that all who appear before the bench understand that truthfulness is not a matter of degree but an absolute and non-negotiable requirement.

==========================================================

@RiggoSoft, you have 48 Hours to show why the Court should not proceed with the above order draft. You may retain counsel to this affect. This case will not proceed until you've responded.


So ordered,
Judge Mug

Click to expand...
Your honor to be honest the only defense there is that I have been acting on behalf of the bank as the interim CEO without the official title or decision for it. I thought it was pretty ordinary for the chairman of a company to become the interim CEO especially if there is no other employees just based off of technicality so I did not intentionally lie based it was a mistake and I truly do apologize however I understand the courts reasoning if they find me guilty of perjury and or contempt.
 

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR AMICUS BRIEF

Your honour,
I have some insight into the situation regarding OCB as a member of the creditor class of Sagamo2008’s bankruptcy proceedings (Sagamo2008 being a shareholder of OCB)

@Muggy21

 
Superwoops said:

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR AMICUS BRIEF

Your honour,
I have some insight into the situation regarding OCB as a member of the creditor class of Sagamo2008’s bankruptcy proceedings (Sagamo2008 being a shareholder of OCB)

@Muggy21

Click to expand...

Granted.
 

Court Order


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Finding of Perjury and Contempt.


On February 12th, 2026 at 9:13PM EST, Attorney RiggoSoft filed a complaint with Plaintiffs "RiggoSoft" and "Oakridge Community Bank" On initial review, the Complaint conforms with the style guide, appears to be non-frivolous, and outlines several plausible legal claims; The tenacity of those claims is yet to be adjuged, the Court simply states that said claims aren't outlandish.


On February 13th, 2026 at 1:45pm, Judge Mug requested proof of representation (authority to represent) from Attorney RiggoSoft. One minute later, Riggosoft plainly stated "I am serving as the interim CEO of OCB" (#4).

However, at 5:32pm EST, Riggosoft posted an image of a corporate resolution stating that the Board had made him interim CEO at 5:31pm EST. If RiggoSoft were the CEO of OCB at the time he proffered it (at 2/13/26 @ 1:45pm EST), he'd have no need to have the board commit to a resolution AFTER such a statement.


WHEREFORE, the Federal Court submits to the Plaintiff's response as follows:

  1. The Court finds that Attorney RiggoSoft, having made statements under penalty of perjury on February 13th, 2026 at 1:45pm EST regarding his status as interim CEO of Oakridge Community Bank, committed perjury by affirming a position he did not possess he claimed at the moment of his sworn statement.
  2. Said perjury constitutes Contempt of Court and is grossly inappropriate and is a stain on the legal profession.
THEREFORE, the Federal Court finds:
  1. RiggoSoft GUILTY of Perjury x1.
  2. RiggoSoft GUILTY of Contempt of Court.
  3. that RiggoSoft's conduct is an affront to the standards expected of Counselors before the Courts. A conduct strike shall be issued.
He shall be fined $2,500 and imprisoned for 45 minutes.

The Court will not tolerate nor condone statements made under penalty of perjury that deviate from factual accuracy, however minor they may appear. To permit such conduct would be to permit the systematic erosion of the Court's authority and the integrity of the judicial process itself. RiggoSoft's deliberate misrepresentation, though concerning a matter he may have deemed ancillary, represents a direct affront to the administration of justice and to the rule of law upon which this nation's legal system depends.


The findings and sanctions imposed herein reflect this Court's commitment to preserving the sanctity of oaths and ensuring that all who appear before the bench understand that truthfulness is not a matter of degree but an absolute and non-negotiable requirement.


 

Writ of Summons


@dimitre977

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.

 
why am i being brought into this court case? it is easier to contact me in a ticket or dm
 
dimitre977 said:
why am i being brought into this court case? it is easier to contact me in a ticket or dm
Click to expand...
Any who, you're here now.

You have 48 Hours to present an Answer.
 

Brief


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
AMICUS BRIEF


Your honour,
I would like to humbly invite the Court to hold hands and take a stroll down to the Company Docket of OCB. There, we can see the following ownership structure for the Bank:

RiggoSoft: 548,230 shares
Sagamo2008: 559,670 shares
Palantir: 123,100 shares

Sagamo2008 is currently in bankruptcy proceedings. As such, his shares are, effectively, frozen until the liquidation happens. In this bankruptcy, he designated RiggoSoft as his trustee, but this does not empower RiggoSoft to make use of the voting power of said shares. This power is defined in OCB’s Shareholder Agreement (attached in the Company Docket) as follows:

“Each share entitles the holder to one vote on shareholder matters”

No one consulted the creditor class of Sagamo2008, nor Palantir (owned by 12700k), about the appointment of an interim CEO. I have checked with 12700k and he affirms never having been contacted for any shareholder votes. Likewise, no one was contacted for the initiation of a Federal civil case against a former CEO. Both of these could be seen as decisions which the Agreement empowers shareholders to vote on in order to be enacted.

As a member of the creditor class of Sagamo2008’s bankruptcy proceedings, I am troubled by these findings. I could not state with 100% certainty that the “Board’s” appointment of RiggoSoft as interim CEO is valid, however I cannot state with certainty that it is invalid either.

I believe a blessing of Larry (requesting the DOC’s input) could be beneficial.​

 
Superwoops said:

Brief


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
AMICUS BRIEF


Your honour,
I would like to humbly invite the Court to hold hands and take a stroll down to the Company Docket of OCB. There, we can see the following ownership structure for the Bank:

RiggoSoft: 548,230 shares
Sagamo2008: 559,670 shares
Palantir: 123,100 shares

Sagamo2008 is currently in bankruptcy proceedings. As such, his shares are, effectively, frozen until the liquidation happens. In this bankruptcy, he designated RiggoSoft as his trustee, but this does not empower RiggoSoft to make use of the voting power of said shares. This power is defined in OCB’s Shareholder Agreement (attached in the Company Docket) as follows:

“Each share entitles the holder to one vote on shareholder matters”

No one consulted the creditor class of Sagamo2008, nor Palantir (owned by 12700k), about the appointment of an interim CEO. I have checked with 12700k and he affirms never having been contacted for any shareholder votes. Likewise, no one was contacted for the initiation of a Federal civil case against a former CEO. Both of these could be seen as decisions which the Agreement empowers shareholders to vote on in order to be enacted.

As a member of the creditor class of Sagamo2008’s bankruptcy proceedings, I am troubled by these findings. I could not state with 100% certainty that the “Board’s” appointment of RiggoSoft as interim CEO is valid, however I cannot state with certainty that it is invalid either.​

Click to expand...
It is in our shareholder agreement that states the board has full discretion on who they decide to hire for the role of officers. As such 12700k you and the rest of the creditor class that represent sagamos shares had no say in the matter. Respectfully to all shareholders and creditors including yourself they had no say in the decision of the appointment of the CEO.
 
Muggy21 said:
Any who, you're here now.

You have 48 Hours to present an Answer.
Click to expand...
Your Honor,

I will be representing the defendant.

1771197110554.png

1771197093729.png
 
1771199035641.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
RiggoSoft said:
View attachment 74516
Click to expand...

Objection


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

Your Honor,

We are not in discovery at this time. It is prejudicial for the plaintiff to make additional submissions outside of those permitted under Rule 4.6 ("At any point and anytime during discovery, either party is allowed to make a material submission of discovery and enter it into the case", emphasis mine).

I am attempting to formulate an answer to complaint and a motion to dismiss. I ask that the Court strike this submission and bar further submissions by the Plaintiff until discovery begins.

 
Franciscus said:

Objection


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

Your Honor,

We are not in discovery at this time. It is prejudicial for the plaintiff to make additional submissions outside of those permitted under Rule 4.6 ("At any point and anytime during discovery, either party is allowed to make a material submission of discovery and enter it into the case", emphasis mine).

I am attempting to formulate an answer to complaint and a motion to dismiss. I ask that the Court strike this submission and bar further submissions by the Plaintiff until discovery begins.

Click to expand...

Granted P-07 is struck.
 

Motion


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

Your Honor,

The Defense seeks dismissal of this case under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim) respectfully alleging:

1. The Plaintiff fails to state a valid claim under the law.​

Under Rule 5.5, a suit may be dismissed "for failure to state a claim for relief, or against a[] claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge".

In this case, the Plaintiff seeks relief under the Redmont Civil Code Act for actions that the Plaintiff alleges to have occurred in December 2025 and January 2026. The Redmont Civil Code Act was signed into law in February 2026. Upon examination of Court precedent, and the relevant law governing ex post facto, the Defense concludes that the Plaintiff has failed to state a valid claim under the law. Our reasoning is as below:

1.1 The Plaintiff seeks relief exclusively under the Redmont Civil Code Act.​

The Plaintiffs alleges five claims for relief (Complaint). The claims, in short, are alleged by the Plaintiff to arise from the following parts of our Law:
  • First Claim: "Part VI §1 according to Redmont Civil Code Act"
  • Second Claim: "Part VI §4 according to Redmont Civil Code Act"
  • Third Claim: "Part XII §3 according to Redmont Civil Code Act"
  • Fourth Claim: "Part XII §5 according to Redmont Civil Code Act"
  • Fifth Claim: "Part V §3 according to Redmont Civil Code Act"
Since each of these claims for relief purport to arise from the Redmont Civil Code Act (RCCA), we must ask ourselves: can the Redmont Civil Code Act, which was signed into law by President Multiman155 on 7 February 2026, be applied to the facts in this case? As we show below, Federal Court Precedent indicates that the Redmont Civil Code Act cannot be applied retroactively to factal patterns that predate the RCCA's passage.

1.2 Protection against ex-post facto laws applies in civil cases under the Common Law, and the RCCA does not override this protection.​

The Federal Court has previously examined the scope of ex post facto, its place in our legal system, and whether or not it arises purely from statute (rather than some deep principle). Such was examined in the case End v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 31. In that case, the Plaintiff argued that ex post facto was limited to solely apply to the criminal law, citing the Standardized Criminal Code Act (one of several criminal laws at the time). The argument was that SCCA 4(4)(a) essentially limited the scope of ex post facto to purely criminal law, and that civil litigation (such as the constitutional questions in that case) was not restricted by ex post facto. The Defense argued in its answer that ex post facto was a much more general principle, calling it an "obvious legal practice utilized in various defenses".

What did the court conclude? The Court sided for the defense; the Court wrote that ex post facto was not limited to criminal cases, but "is generally a legal idea to apply the law as it was then and not what it is now when looking at all cases not just criminal. People, companies and the commonwealth can only act as the law is during the moment and not what it will be in the future. Therefore when interpreting the law, one should not retroactively apply the law unless that law overrides Ex Post Facto", except when certain explicit statutory mechanisms in the law are followed to do so.

[2025] FCR 31 is not an abberation, nor an isolated case. The Supreme Court has cited the Federal Court's ruling supportively, writing that the "overriding reason for extending ex-post facto protections to non-criminal matters is to protect parties from having to look into the future to adequately protect themselves" ([2025] FCR 78 - Appeal Request 1, No. 5, "Opinion of the Court").

Under the law at all times relevant to this case, the overriding of ex post facto protections may be done "through a bill, however such a bill will require supermajority in both chambers" (Criminal Code Act, Part I, Section 6(4)(c)). As the Redmont Civil Code Act does not explicitly override protections against ex post facto application of law in its text, this Court must conclude that claims which arise from the RCCA may not be applied ex post facto.

1.3 The Factual Allegations in this case all pre-date the implementation of the RCCA, so application of the RCCA to these facts would be ex post facto.​

Now that we have our principle of ex post facto laid out, let us now consider the facts in this case. The Plaintiff has made, at present thirty-two factual allegations (Complaint). The factual allegations, per the Plaintiff, are such that "dates are formatted mm/dd/yyyy and times are formatted 12:00 in the Eastern Standard Time time zone".

The Defense notes that the earliest factual allegation (the first one) is dated 22 December 2025. The most recent factual allegation (the thirty-second one) is dated 20 January 2025. These all pre-date the passage into law of the RCCA, which occurred when the 26th President of the Commonwealth of Redmont signed it into law on 7 February 2026.

As the Plaintiff's claims arise from a law which post-dates any material fact in this case, application of the RCCA to these facts would constitute an ex post facto application of law.

1.4 Conclusion: The Plaintiff has failed to state a claim, and this case should be dismissed.​

"When reviewing this case, the most important question needing to answered first is what law applies and where." (End v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 31). In this case, we have examined whether or not the RCCA plausibly could apply to the facts alleged, and we conclude that it cannot.

As such, the Plaintiff has failed to state a valid claim under the law; the application of the RCCA to the factual allegations in this complaint would violate common law protections against ex post facto application of law, and this case should be dismissed.

 
Your Honor,

The Defense requests an extension on the submission of the answer to complaint until 24 hours after the above Motion to Dismiss is ruled upon.
 
Franciscus said:
Your Honor,

The Defense requests an extension on the submission of the answer to complaint until 24 hours after the above Motion to Dismiss is ruled upon.
Click to expand...

Answer deadline is tolled pending the Motion to Dismiss.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top