palexander4th v. texansontop, et al.

[lovecodeabc]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

---

Palexander4th
Plaintiff

v.

Texansontop, a.k.a. Mr. aventura, and
maks.2023, a.k.a. MAXXXMAXXX, and
Democracy Photos and News Group
Defendants​

---

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On September 26, 2026, Defendant maks2023 falsely accused Palexander4th of scamming for the first time. In time, these defamatory statements made their way to the owner of Democracy Photos and News Group (a news organization where Plaintiff had owned a 20% share in), Texansontop. Texansontop then failed to honor maks2023's rights as a co-owner of the business because of those lies. Defendant Democracy Photos and News Group even published a news story (which was quickly taken down by #news moderators) claiming maks2023 to be a scammer. The Plaintiff brings this action to recover from those lies.

I. PARTIES
1. @Palexander4th, represented by @amah853 and @lovecodeabc from Keystone Law.
2. Texansontop, Defendant.
3. maks.2023, Defendant.
4. Democracy Photos and News Group, a partnership, Defendant.

---

II. FACTS​

A. Acquisition and nature of the ownership interest​

1. On or about October 3, 2026, Texansontop publicly advertised the sale of a 20% interest in his business, stating that "this is news and photography "Im sell 20% of my company for 200 Dollars starting bid auction ends in 2 days"". P-001.
2. Plaintiff participated in the auction and acquired the advertised 20% interest. P-002.
3. Plaintiff paid $1,500 through the in-game payment system in consideration for the transaction. P-003.
4. Plaintiff understood the transaction to confer an ownership interest in the Business.
5. When Defendant maks.2023 suggested that Plaintiff could be fired, Texansontop responded: "he could get fired for this. no he couldnt he owns 20% of my company". P-004, P-005.
6. On October 4, 2026, when Plaintiff questioned his removal from the Business's Discord server, Texansontop further stated: "Oh you still have 20% in shares". P-006.
7. The Business has never been registered in the Company Register under the Redmont Corporate Entities Act ("RCEA").

B. Exclusion from the Business​

8. Despite acknowledging Plaintiff's ownership, Texansontop excluded Plaintiff from the Business's Discord server and its operations.
9. Texansontop continued operating the Business following Plaintiff's exclusion.
10. Plaintiff has not been provided a satisfactory accounting of the Business's finances, profits, or the treatment of his ownership interest, nor received his share of the profits of the Business.

C. Allegations of scamming and publication​

11. On or about September 26, 2026, Defendant maks.2023 began accusing Plaintiff of scamming in connection with a proposed transaction involving a CBD plot.
12. The dispute concerned the nature of the interest being offered in the plot, including whether the transaction involved ownership or rental rights.
13. These allegations were communicated to Texansontop and subsequently repeated or publicized through the Business's news operation. P-007. The news post got deleted afterwards by staff. P-008.
14. Defendant maks.2023 also made these accusations publicly in the DemocracyCraft Discord server, scaring bidders away from Plaintiff's other auctions. P-009, P-009A.

---

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

COUNT I — VIOLATION OF PARTNERSHIP RIGHTS​

1. Under §35(1) of the RCEA, a general partnership may arise without registration where persons carry on business in common with a view to profit.
2. As there was no Company Registration, the Business was structured as a partnership because there were two or more people (Plaintiff and Defendant texansontop) carrying out business in common with a view to profit.
3. Under the RCEA, partners have a right to a share of the profits and a vote. Id. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is entitled to 20% of profits (as he recieved a 20% interest) and a 20% vote. He has received neither.
4. Congress intended to prohibit the unilateral revocation of minority partners' share in the business. Cf. RCEA pt. IV, §21(6) ("An amendment that forfeits, cancels, or compels the transfer of an interest already held takes effect against a holder only with that holder's consent, or on payment to them of fair value determined in the manner set out in section 54(2). This subsection may not be displaced by the formation instrument.")
5. As Defendant Texansontop admits, Plaintiff possessed a 20% ownership interest in the Business.
6. The denial of Plaintiff's partnership rights (because the 20% stake was never validly revoked) is a violation of the RCEA.

COUNT II — BREACH OF CONTRACT​

7. The Plaintiff paid $1,500 on an auction conducted by Defendant Texansontop. The auction offer, and the bid, constituted a valid contract under Redmont law.
8. Implicit in every contract is the requirement that both sides deal in good faith and with fairness and integrity. Contracts Act § 12.
9. Defendant Texansontop violated this convenant of good faith and fair dealing by unfairly excluding Plaintiff from operations of the Business and not honoring his rights as a partner.
10. Defendant's conduct was unfair and in bad faith to the point where it is prohibited by Redmont law, as alleged supra.
11. Accordingly, Defendant Texansontop violated the contract between Plaintiff and Defendant Texansontop.

COUNT III -- TORTUOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT​

12. The Redmont Civil Code Act allows recovery where someone "knowingly induces another party to breach their contract with the plaintiff, or intentionally interferes with the plaintiff’s existing contractual relationship".
13. Defendant maks.2023 suggested repeatedly to Defendant texansontop to "fire" Plaintiff.
14. As alleged supra, there existed a valid contract between Defendant texansontop and Plaintiff.
15. Defendant maks.2023's repeated inducements for Defendant texansontop to "fire" Plaintiff thus demonstrates a knowing induction of contract breach, and also represents interference with Defendant texansontop and Plaintiff's existing contractual relationship.

COUNT IV -- TORTUOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONS​

16. The Redmont Civil Code Act allows recovery where someone " intentionally interferes with the plaintiff’s prospective business dealings or economic relationships, and the interference is accomplished through improper means or for improper purposes." (cleaned up).
17. In this case, Defendant maks.2023 intentionally interfered with Plaintiff's and Defendant texansontop's business dealings/economic relationships with each other.
18. The interference was accomplished improperly through the use of false and misleading statements, as alleged infra.
19. Defendant's maks.2023's inducements for Defendant texansontop to "fire" Plaintiff thus demonstrates an intentional interference with Plaintiff's business dealings and economic relationships, accomplished through improper means.

COUNT V — DEFAMATION​

20. Starting at or about September 26, 2026, Defendant maks.2023 has engaged in a web of deception about Plaintiff that continues to this day. Since maks.2023 told Defendant texansontop about the incident, Defendant texansontop has done the same.
21. Defendant maks.2023 alleges that Plaintiff is a "scammer" for seeking to mislead Defendant maks.2023 about the sale of a CBD plot's rights (hereinafter referred to as the "CBD sale").
22. Yet, Plaintiff was fully transparent about the rights that were to be sold in the CBD sale.
23. Most times, it is the buyer's responsibility to screen property and do their due diligence, under the doctrine of caveat emptor. See Lord_Donuticus v. JoanM999 [2021] FCR 16 ("caveat emptor must be noted here"). Here, the buyer did do just that, by asking Plaintiff for clarification on the exact extent of property rights.
24. Plaintiff answered truthfully and straightforwardly to Defendant maks.2023's questions. Yet, Defendant maks.2023 accused Plaintiff of being a "scammer" shortly after.
25. Defendant maks.2023 has repeatedly said that Plaintiff's other auctions are "SCAMS" and advised others to "NOT BID" on them.
26. When Defendant maks.2023 told texansontop about this, texansontop has also started spreading these lies. Defendant texansontop, in one instance, convinced another player that Plaintiff was a fraudster, leading the other player to say "holy crap ok hes bad. got it."
27. Defendants published a news story accusing Plaintiff of fraud, but it was taken down by mods a few days later.
28. The Defendants presented the statement as fact rather than opinion.
29. The Defendants loudly publicized it to many people, including through the use of the #news announcements channel.
30. The Defendants' conduct satisfy the definition of defamation set out in part V, § 1 of the Civil Code Act.

---

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant:

1. Consequential damages in the amount of $25,000.
2. Punitive damages in the amount of $25,000.
3. An order to stop the defamation.
4. An order restoring access to the operations of Democracy Photos and News Group.
5. An amount equivalent to 20% of Democracy Photos and News Group's profits from October 4, 2026, to the entry of the judgment.
6. Legal fees in the amount of $15,000.
7. Such other relief the Court deems necessary and proper.

---

V. EVIDENCE & PROOF OF REPRESENTATION​

P-001:

Spoiler: P-001

P-002:

Spoiler: P-002

P-003:

Spoiler: P-003

P-004:

Spoiler: P-004

P-005:

Spoiler: P-005

P-006:

Spoiler: P-006

P-007:

Spoiler: P-007 screenshot

P-008:

Spoiler: P-008 screenshot

P-009:

Spoiler: P-009

P-009A:

Spoiler: P-009A

Spoiler: Proof of Representation