Lawsuit: Pending Pellanth Credit & Banking v. Schmuck [2026] FCR 86

[lao19]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Pellanth Credit & Banking (Represented by lao19)
Plaintiff

v.

Schmuck (Minecraft Username: schmuck)
Defendant

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

This action arises from the unauthorized acquisition and retention of approximately Five Hundred Eighty Eight Thousand Dollars ($588,000) belonging to Pellanth Company through the exploitation of a vulnerability within the DemocracyCraft banking system. The funds were transferred through repeated withdrawal transactions and ultimately linked to the Defendant's account.

The conduct at issue caused significant financial harm to Pellanth Company, disrupted business operations, deprived the company of access to its property, and negatively affected a substantial number of individuals who relied upon the company’s continued operation. The Defendant has retained the benefit of funds that were neither earned nor lawfully obtained and has failed to restore those funds despite notice of the issue.

The Plaintiff therefore seeks damages resulting from the disruption caused by the Defendant's actions, and injunctive relief necessary to preserve assets pending final judgment.

I. PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Pellanth Company is a duly registered business operating within the Commonwealth of Redmont.
2. Plaintiff is represented in this matter by lao19. (consent provided below)
3. Defendant Schmuck, Minecraft username "schmuck," is a player subject to the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Redmont and the authority of this Court.

II. FACTS

1. Pellanth Company maintained substantial funds within the DemocracyCraft banking system for the purpose of conducting lawful business operations.
2. On or about June 23, 2026, a series of abnormal and unauthorized withdrawal transactions were recorded within the banking system. These transactions occurred repeatedly and in rapid succession.
3. Transaction records show numerous withdrawals originating from firm capital accounts. Administrative records subsequently linked the destination of the transferred funds to the Defendant's account.
4. The transactions were not authorized by Pellanth Company and were not conducted pursuant to any contract, loan agreement, employment agreement, or other lawful arrangement involving Pellanth Company and the Defendant.
5. As a result of these transfers, approximately Five Hundred Eighty Eight Thousand Dollars ($588,000) was removed from the control of Pellanth Company.
6. The amount taken represented a substantial portion of company assets.The unauthorized transfers severely impaired the company's ability to conduct ordinary business operations, thus affecting approximately one hundred individuals who relied upon the company and its services.
7. Following discovery of the incident, company representatives conducted an investigation into the source and destination of the missing funds. The investigation identified repeated transactions associated with the Defendant and administrative banking records further corroborated that the Defendant's account received the disputed funds.
8. Statements made following the incident acknowledged the existence of approximately six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000) in disputed funds.
9. At no point did Pellanth Company consent to the Defendant obtaining or retaining the transferred funds.
10. The Defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the funds did not belong to him and despite notice of the dispute, the funds have not been returned in full. The Defendant continues to benefit from property rightfully belonging to Pellanth Company.
11. Plaintiff has suffered significant financial losses, operational disruption, loss of business opportunities, administrative expenses, investigative costs, and reputational harm as a result of the Defendant's conduct.
12. Unless restrained by this Court, there exists a risk that the disputed funds may be spent, transferred, concealed, dissipated, or otherwise rendered unrecoverable before final judgment.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT I – CONVERSION

1. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding allegations as though fully stated herein.
2. Plaintiff possessed a lawful ownership interest in the funds removed from its accounts.
3. Defendant exercised dominion and control over those funds.
4. Such control was inconsistent with Plaintiff's ownership rights.
5. Defendant's actions deprived Plaintiff of possession, use, and enjoyment of its property.
6. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff suffered substantial damages.
7. Defendant is liable for the full value of the converted property.

COUNT II – UNJUST ENRICHMENT

1. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding allegations as though fully stated herein.
2. Defendant received a substantial financial benefit.
3. The benefit was obtained through transfers not authorized by Plaintiff.
4. Defendant's retention of those funds would be inequitable and contrary to principles of fairness and justice.

COUNT III – INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS OPERATIONS

1. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding allegations as though fully stated herein.
2. Defendant's conduct directly disrupted the ordinary operations of Pellanth Company.
3. The loss of funds impaired the company's ability to conduct business, meet obligations, and provide services.
4. The disruption affected approximately one hundred individuals connected to the company's operations.
5. Plaintiff suffered economic losses and operational damages as a direct result of Defendant's actions.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Court:

Compensatory damages for loss of business to PC&B clients in an amount not less than Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000).
Consequential damages of One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000) for worsening conditions caused by this theft.
Punitive damages for the theft in the amount of Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000)
Any additional relief the Court deems just, proper, and equitable.

EVIDENCE

Exhibit A – Transaction ledger showing repeated capital withdrawal transactions. P-002s through to P-007s

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Exhibit B – Administrative banking panel identifying the Defendant's account as recipient of the disputed funds. P-002 through P-007s

Spoiler: P-004

Spoiler: P-005

Spoiler: P-006

Spoiler: P-007

Exhibit C – Statements acknowledging the existence of approximately $600,000 in disputed funds. P-001s

Spoiler: P-001

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 28th day of August 2026
(Edited to change minor issue, no relevant data has been edited)

 

[CreeperTD]

@Citrixxxx @lao19 do you still wish to pursue this case? You have 48 hours to respond.

 

[lao19]

@Citrixxxx @lao19 do you still wish to pursue this case? You have 48 hours to respond.

Yes, we still wish to pursue this case.

 

[CreeperTD]

Writ of Summons

@schmuck is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Pellanth Credit & Banking v. Schmuck [2026] FCR 86.

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.

 

[CreeperTD]

For failing to appear, and thereby disobeying a lawful court order, Defendant schmuck is hereby held in Contempt of Court and shall be fined 5 Penalty Units.

Considering that a ruling against the Defendant would have a significant financial impact on them, the Court will assign a Public Defender.

 

[CreeperTD]

For failing to appear, and thereby disobeying a lawful court order, Defendant schmuck is hereby held in Contempt of Court and shall be fined 5 Penalty Units.

Considering that a ruling against the Defendant would have a significant financial impact on them, the Court will assign a Public Defender.

The court has realized that this was issued a day early. Let it be considered as taking effect at the time of this post.

 

[CreeperTD]

@Pepecuu has been hired by the court as a Public Defender. Please announce your presence to the court.

 

[Pepecuu]

@Pepecuu has been hired by the court as a Public Defender. Please announce your presence to the court.

Good day to all parties, as Judge @CreeperTD has mentioned above, I will be the assigned Public Defender for the Defendant.

 

[CreeperTD]

Good day to all parties, as Judge @CreeperTD has mentioned above, I will be the assigned Public Defender for the Defendant.

Please present an answer to complaint within 72 hours.

 

[Pepecuu]

Please present an answer to complaint within 72 hours.

Answer to Complaint

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

Pellanth Credit & Banking
Plaintiff

v.

Schmuck
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defence cannot affirm or deny that Pellanth Credit & Banking (referred to by the Plaintiff as "Pellanth Company") maintained "substantial" funds within the DemocracyCraft banking system for the purpose of conducting lawful business operations.
2. The Defence affirms that about June 23, 2026, a series of abnormal and unauthorized withdrawal transactions were recorded within the banking system. The Defence also affirms these alleged transactions occurred repeatedly and in rapid succession.
3. The Defence affirms that transaction records show numerous withdrawals originating from firm capital accounts. However, the Defence cannot affirm or deny that the administrative records subsequently linked the destination of the transferred funds to the Defendant's in-game account.
4. The Defence affirms that the transactions were not authorized by Pellanth Company and were not conducted pursuant to any contract, loan agreement, employment agreement, or other lawful arrangement involving Pellanth Company and the Defendant.
5. The Defence cannot affirm nor deny that as a result of these transfers, approximately Five Hundred Eighty Eight Thousand Dollars ($588,000) was removed from the control of Pellanth Company.
6. The Defence cannot affirm nor deny that the amount taken represented a substantial portion of company assets, as the Defence presently lacks sufficient knowledge regarding the Plaintiff's internal finances and operations. Furthermore, the Defence cannot affirm nor deny that unauthorized transfers severely impaired the company's ability to conduct ordinary business operations, which the Plaintiff alleges would have affected approximately one hundred individuals who relied upon the company and its services.
7. The Defence cannot affirm or deny that company representatives had conducted an investigation into the source and destination of the missing funds, as the Defence does not have access, nor have any Plaintiff evidence to suggest that an investigation was conducted by company representatives. However, the Defence denies that the Plaintiff has identified repeated transactions associated with the Defendant specifically using independent evidence, and denies that their administrative banking records further corroborates that the Defendant's account received the disputed funds, due to the lack of external auditing or authentication regarding the Plaintiff's internal systems and their data.
8. The Defence affirms that the Defendant made statements acknowledging the existence of approximately six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000), however cannot affirm or deny that these funds are disputed.
9. The Defence affirms that to its knowledge, at no point did Pellanth Company consent to the Defendant obtaining or retaining any funds, but cannot affirm or deny that the Defendant was specifically transferred funds.
10. The Defence denies that the knowledge alone of whether the Defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the funds did not belong to him establishes that the Defendant obtained or retained the specific property alleged by the Plaintiff. The Defence cannot affirm or deny that the Defendant continues to benefit from property rightfully belonging to Pellanth Company.
11. The Defence denies that the Plaintiff has suffered significant financial losses, operational disruption, loss of business opportunities, administrative expenses, investigative costs, and reputational harm due to conduct attributable to the Defendant.
12. The Defence denies that the evidence presently identified by the Plaintiff sufficiently establishes a risk that the disputed funds will be spent, transferred, concealed, dissipated, or otherwise rendered unrecoverable before final judgment so as to justify extraordinary or interim relief.

II. DEFENCES
1. Failure to attribute the account in question to the Defendant
The Plaintiff relies upon their own banking records identifying a destination account as the recipient of the disputed transactions. However, the Plaintiff's own system identifies that account as “unverified.” The Defendant submits that the unverified account designation raises significant material concern regarding the identity of the account holder.

The Defence has no additional evidence to present to the Court, or witnesses to call upon at this time.

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 28th day of September 2026.

 

[Pepecuu]

Motion

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

The Defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges Rule 5.5 – Lack of Claim on “COUNT III – INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS OPERATIONS". In the RCCA (Part X §3), this is defined as "intentionally interferes with the plaintiff’s prospective business dealings or economic relationships". The Defence submits that the existence of alleged business disruption does not, by itself, establish any intentionality to cause said business disruption. Therefore, the Plaintiff's third claim merely restates the alleged financial consequences of the transactions underlying the Plaintiff's other claims, and fails to establish any proper legal basis for their claim.

Accordingly, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the Plaintiff's third Claim for Relief.

 

[CreeperTD]

Motion

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

The Defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges Rule 5.5 – Lack of Claim on “COUNT III – INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS OPERATIONS". In the RCCA (Part X §3), this is defined as "intentionally interferes with the plaintiff’s prospective business dealings or economic relationships". The Defence submits that the existence of alleged business disruption does not, by itself, establish any intentionality to cause said business disruption. Therefore, the Plaintiff's third claim merely restates the alleged financial consequences of the transactions underlying the Plaintiff's other claims, and fails to establish any proper legal basis for their claim.

Accordingly, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the Plaintiff's third Claim for Relief.

This motion is DENIED, Rule 5.5 specifically states that it can only be called upon “after the end of discovery.”

We shall now enter discovery, which shall last for a period of 5 days. The court reminds both sides that discovery may be ended early upon mutual agreement by both parties

 

[CreeperTD]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OT THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Upon further review of Plaintiff’s Initial Complaint, the Court has discovered multiple deficiencies which must be remedied during the course of discovery for this case to proceed. Whereas Rule 1.9 allows the Court to “ask, request, or demand” a party to present information, the Court demands that the Plaintiff remedy these defects by the end of Discovery on pain of dismissal:

1. The Attorney who has filed the complaint has failed to provide proof of representation. Proof of this must be provided within 24 hours or this action will be dismissed.

2. Fact 3 alleges that multiple (in-game?) firms are associated with the Defendant, however it isn’t explained how the evidence provided connects the two. Is there some technical reason for this connection? The court can’t be expected to read into evidence what isn’t actually stated. Amendments to the Complaint or additional evidence must address this.

3. Fact 2 alleges that the transfers were “abnormal and unauthorized.” How is this so? Again, Plaintiff cannot expect the Court to find connections for them, they must instead argue that the connections exist before the court.

The Court orders this sua sponte without regard to Defense Counsel’s arguments as they stand. No existing deadlines are altered by this order.

So ordered.

 

[lao19]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OT THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Upon further review of Plaintiff’s Initial Complaint, the Court has discovered multiple deficiencies which must be remedied during the course of discovery for this case to proceed. Whereas Rule 1.9 allows the Court to “ask, request, or demand” a party to present information, the Court demands that the Plaintiff remedy these defects by the end of Discovery on pain of dismissal:

1. The Attorney who has filed the complaint has failed to provide proof of representation. Proof of this must be provided within 24 hours or this action will be dismissed.

2. Fact 3 alleges that multiple (in-game?) firms are associated with the Defendant, however it isn’t explained how the evidence provided connects the two. Is there some technical reason for this connection? The court can’t be expected to read into evidence what isn’t actually stated. Amendments to the Complaint or additional evidence must address this.

3. Fact 2 alleges that the transfers were “abnormal and unauthorized.” How is this so? Again, Plaintiff cannot expect the Court to find connections for them, they must instead argue that the connections exist before the court.

The Court orders this sua sponte without regard to Defense Counsel’s arguments as they stand. No existing deadlines are altered by this order.

So ordered.

Response

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

RESPONSE TO THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Your Honour,

1. Proof of representation from current Department of Commerce receiver of Pellanth:

2.
The funds taken out of the corporate accounts were sent directly to the defendant's personal PC&B account before being withdrawn to their in-game account as shown in P-004 to P-007.

3.
The allegedly stolen funds were not actually deposited into the account at any time. The defendant used a vulnerability in the Pellanth website to immediately request funds multiple times from a corporate account, allowing that money to be withdrawed and sending the corporate account into the negatives on pellanth's end. They repeated this until they had taken the amount of $588,000.

 

[CreeperTD]

Response

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

RESPONSE TO THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Your Honour,

1. Proof of representation from current Department of Commerce receiver of Pellanth:
View attachment 100531

2.
The funds taken out of the corporate accounts were sent directly to the defendant's personal PC&B account before being withdrawn to their in-game account as shown in P-004 to P-007.

3.
The allegedly stolen funds were not actually deposited into the account at any time. The defendant used a vulnerability in the Pellanth website to immediately request funds multiple times from a corporate account, allowing that money to be withdrawed and sending the corporate account into the negatives on pellanth's end. They repeated this until they had taken the amount of $588,000.

The court doesn't find Plaintiff's response to question 2 to be adequate. Again, I ask what evidence do you have that links the corporate accounts to the Defendant directly? Did they create those accounts at the bank? Did they have ownership of those accounts? You have 24 hours.

A reminder that Discovery is ongoing, and all related actions are able to occur at this time.

 

[Pepecuu]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO END DISCOVERY EARLY

Your Honor, and to the Plaintiff's Counsel,

The Defence does not anticipate making further evidentiary submissions or calling witnesses.

In the interests of procedural efficiency, the Defence hereby proposes ending discovery early, pursuant to Rule 4.5 of the Court Rules and Procedures.

 

[Citrixxxx]

The court doesn't find Plaintiff's response to question 2 to be adequate. Again, I ask what evidence do you have that links the corporate accounts to the Defendant directly? Did they create those accounts at the bank? Did they have ownership of those accounts? You have 24 hours.

A reminder that Discovery is ongoing, and all related actions are able to occur at this time.

I would like to request an extension due to extenuating circumstances. The law firm that was representing us has disbanded and @lao19 told us to find new representation.

 

[Citrixxxx]

The court doesn't find Plaintiff's response to question 2 to be adequate. Again, I ask what evidence do you have that links the corporate accounts to the Defendant directly? Did they create those accounts at the bank? Did they have ownership of those accounts? You have 24 hours.

A reminder that Discovery is ongoing, and all related actions are able to occur at this time.

I would like to request an extension due to extenuating circumstances. The law firm that was representing us has disbanded.

(sorry accidentally posted this twice)

 

[CreeperTD]

I would like to request an extension due to extenuating circumstances. The law firm that was representing us has disbanded and @lao19 told us to find new representation.

You have 24 hours to find new representation.

 

[SplashyAlpaca77]

You have 24 hours to find new representation.

Present on Behalf of the Plaintiff, Your honor. Could I get 24 hours to respond to the order to show cause?

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[CreeperTD]

Present on Behalf of the Plaintiff, Your honor. Could I get 24 hours to respond to the order to show cause?

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

View attachment 100601

Granted.

 

[SplashyAlpaca77]

The court doesn't find Plaintiff's response to question 2 to be adequate. Again, I ask what evidence do you have that links the corporate accounts to the Defendant directly? Did they create those accounts at the bank? Did they have ownership of those accounts? You have 24 hours.

A reminder that Discovery is ongoing, and all related actions are able to occur at this time.

Case Filing

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
A. The Defendant was clearly connected to the Company accounts, as they withdrew money from them, as shown In P-004. This evidence is directly linking the Defendant to the corporate accounts, as they received the money from them.
B. Whether or not Defendant had control of company accounts does not matter, as they were able to withdraw money from them, and able to convert that money.
C. Additionally, We submit P-008, P-009, P010, and P-011. P-007 proves that IsrealiDefenseForce was owned by the owner with the username "Schmuck". Then, P-009 and P-010 prove that the "unverified" tag is merely a visual glitch, as both the lawyer, who is able to access the back end, and the literal owner are "unverified". In addition, P-011 proves that the fact that the Defendant was able to access the bank is proof they were verified in their minecraft account, as the screenshot shows the only thing anyone has access too is just a "please verify" screen until you verify. Thus, in order for the Defendant to have acted as we proved they have, they must link their MC account and be "verified" in order to do so.

Spoiler: P-008

Spoiler: P-009

Spoiler: P-010

Spoiler: P-011

 

[Pepecuu]

Case Filing

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
A. The Defendant was clearly connected to the Company accounts, as they withdrew money from them, as shown In P-004. This evidence is directly linking the Defendant to the corporate accounts, as they received the money from them.
B. Whether or not Defendant had control of company accounts does not matter, as they were able to withdraw money from them, and able to convert that money.
C. Additionally, We submit P-008, P-009, P010, and P-011. P-007 proves that IsrealiDefenseForce was owned by the owner with the username "Schmuck". Then, P-009 and P-010 prove that the "unverified" tag is merely a visual glitch, as both the lawyer, who is able to access the back end, and the literal owner are "unverified". In addition, P-011 proves that the fact that the Defendant was able to access the bank is proof they were verified in their minecraft account, as the screenshot shows the only thing anyone has access too is just a "please verify" screen until you verify. Thus, in order for the Defendant to have acted as we proved they have, they must link their MC account and be "verified" in order to do so.

Spoiler: P-008

View attachment 100653

Spoiler: P-009

View attachment 100654

Spoiler: P-010

View attachment 100655

Spoiler: P-011

View attachment 100658

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

Your Honor,
In the Plaintiff's 'Response to Order to Show Cause' (Point A), the Plaintiff asserts that "This evidence is directly linking the Defendant to the corporate accounts, as they received the money from them", with the phrase "This evidence" referring to P-004. However, the Plaintiff's assumptions go beyond what the exhibit itself establishes by asserting that an alleged transaction within the Plaintiff's banking system automatically proves ownership or control of the corporate account by the Defendant.

Therefore, the Defendant respectfully requests the Court to strike the Plaintiff's assertion of P-004 as "linking the Defendant to the corporate accounts", when the exhibit itself does not establish that proposition.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - SPECULATION

Your Honor,
In Point B, the Plaintiff asserts that P-009 and P-010 "prove that the 'unverified' tag is merely a visual glitch," relying on screenshots of other accounts that show an “Unverified” status alongside active banking activity. However, P-009 and P-010 merely demonstrate that accounts with an “Unverified” designation can have transaction activity recorded in their banking system. Neither exhibit provides a technical explanation for why the designation appears, nor does either tangibly establish that the designation is erroneous or merely cosmetic.

By utilizing this line of argument, the Plaintiff is asking the Court to make an unproven factual inference that the “Unverified” designation is merely a visual glitch, even though the plain existence of banking activity alongside this designation does not, by itself, establish that explanation.

Accordingly, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court strike the Plaintiff's speculative characterization of the “Unverified” designation.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - SPECULATION

Your Honor,
Within Point C of the Plaintiff's 'Response to Order to Show Cause', the Plaintiff makes the conclusion that "Thus, in order for the Defendant to have acted as we proved they have, they must link their MC account and be 'verified'" (Words emboldened for emphasis), relying on P-011 as the evidence that all accounts need to be verified before transacting.

While P-011 demonstrates that the Plaintiff's website has a verification process, it does not establish that verification was necessarily required to perform the alleged transactions at hand. This is further complicated by P-009 and P-010, which show “Unverified” accounts alongside recorded banking activity, contradicting the Plaintiff's own statements. Therefore, the Plaintiff's conclusion that the Defendant "must" have been verified requires a significant inference between the currently unlinked concepts of the bank's verification procedures and the account attributions within it.

Accordingly, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court strike the inferred conclusion the Plaintiff baselessly draws from their statements regarding P-011 in Point C.

 

[SplashyAlpaca77]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

Your Honor,
In the Plaintiff's 'Response to Order to Show Cause' (Point A), the Plaintiff asserts that "This evidence is directly linking the Defendant to the corporate accounts, as they received the money from them", with the phrase "This evidence" referring to P-004. However, the Plaintiff's assumptions go beyond what the exhibit itself establishes by asserting that an alleged transaction within the Plaintiff's banking system automatically proves ownership or control of the corporate account by the Defendant.

Therefore, the Defendant respectfully requests the Court to strike the Plaintiff's assertion of P-004 as "linking the Defendant to the corporate accounts", when the exhibit itself does not establish that proposition.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - SPECULATION

Your Honor,
In Point B, the Plaintiff asserts that P-009 and P-010 "prove that the 'unverified' tag is merely a visual glitch," relying on screenshots of other accounts that show an “Unverified” status alongside active banking activity. However, P-009 and P-010 merely demonstrate that accounts with an “Unverified” designation can have transaction activity recorded in their banking system. Neither exhibit provides a technical explanation for why the designation appears, nor does either tangibly establish that the designation is erroneous or merely cosmetic.

By utilizing this line of argument, the Plaintiff is asking the Court to make an unproven factual inference that the “Unverified” designation is merely a visual glitch, even though the plain existence of banking activity alongside this designation does not, by itself, establish that explanation.

Accordingly, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court strike the Plaintiff's speculative characterization of the “Unverified” designation.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - SPECULATION

Your Honor,
Within Point C of the Plaintiff's 'Response to Order to Show Cause', the Plaintiff makes the conclusion that "Thus, in order for the Defendant to have acted as we proved they have, they must link their MC account and be 'verified'" (Words emboldened for emphasis), relying on P-011 as the evidence that all accounts need to be verified before transacting.

While P-011 demonstrates that the Plaintiff's website has a verification process, it does not establish that verification was necessarily required to perform the alleged transactions at hand. This is further complicated by P-009 and P-010, which show “Unverified” accounts alongside recorded banking activity, contradicting the Plaintiff's own statements. Therefore, the Plaintiff's conclusion that the Defendant "must" have been verified requires a significant inference between the currently unlinked concepts of the bank's verification procedures and the account attributions within it.

Accordingly, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court strike the inferred conclusion the Plaintiff baselessly draws from their statements regarding P-011 in Point C.

Case Filing

Answer to Objections
Threshold matter
The Response to the Order to Show Cause is a written submission of argument, filed because the Court demanded it under Rule 1.9. It is not witness testimony and it is not a question put to a witness. The Objections Guide defines "Assumes facts not in evidence" in terms of a question that presumes something unproven. It defines "Speculation" in terms of a witness testifying about things they did not directly observe. Neither describes a filing by counsel.


Rule 6.3.1 allows objections against arguments, but only where the objection is accurate to its description, and it says objections "cannot be used outside of their intended purpose." Neither objection is on the Rule 6.3.2 list of non-witness objections either.


The Court's Order also told the Plaintiff that it "must instead argue that the connections exist before the court." The Defence now asks the Court to strike that very argument. Whether an inference from an exhibit is persuasive goes to weight, which the Court will decide at verdict. It is not a ground for striking.


Answer to Objection 1 – Assumes Facts Not in Evidence

Case Filing

1. The objection attacks a proposition the Plaintiff did not make. Point A says the Defendant was connected to the corporate accounts through the withdrawals recorded in P-004. Point B states expressly that ownership or control of those accounts is immaterial. The Plaintiff does not claim P-004 proves ownership of the corporate accounts. It shows receipt of funds withdrawn from them, which answers the Court's question and is what conversion requires: dominion over the funds, not title to the source account.
2. The underlying facts are in evidence and largely uncontested. The Defence's Answer affirms that the transactions were abnormal, repeated and in rapid succession (¶2). It affirms that the withdrawals originated from firm capital accounts (¶3) and that none were authorised (¶4). On whether administrative records linked the destination to the Defendant's account (¶3), the Defence neither affirmed nor denied. Under Rule 3.2(3), that operates as no contest for verdict and summary judgment purposes.
3. Under Rule 4.6, logs and records are presumed correct unless challenged. The Defence has challenged P-004 only by argument and has stated it has no evidence or witnesses to offer.

Answer to Objection 2 – Speculation (the "visual glitch" inference)

1. The threshold matter applies. This is counsel's argument, not testimony. The quoted statement also appears in Point C of the Response, not Point B as the objection states.
2. The inference is drawn from evidence. P-009 and P-010 show two accounts whose holders are not disputed, the company's owner and the attorney with back-end access. Both carry the same "Unverified" label while actively transacting. The reasonable inference is that the label does not distinguish legitimate holders from illegitimate ones. If the Court prefers not to adopt the word "glitch," the argument still stands on narrower ground: on this record, the label tells the Court nothing about whose account it is.
3. The Defence's own sole defence (Part II.1 of its Answer) asks the Court to infer "significant material concern" about identity from that same label alone, with no evidence of what the label means. The Defence has disclaimed any further evidence or witnesses. An inference resting on two exhibits cannot be less permissible than one resting on none.
4. Attribution does not depend on the label. It rests on P-007, which shows the Defendant as owner of the receiving account. It also rests on the Defence's admission (Answer ¶8) that the Defendant made statements acknowledging approximately $600,000.

Answer to Objection 3 – Speculation (the verification inference)

1. The threshold matter applies.
2. The objection finds a contradiction that does not exist. P-011 shows the site is gated behind a "please verify" screen until a Minecraft account is linked. P-009 and P-010 show accounts of actively transacting, undisputed users also displaying "Unverified." These exhibits are consistent: the label does not track whether the gate was passed. They do not undermine the inference from P-011. They explain why the Defence's reliance on the label is misplaced. The Defence's reading would require the Court to accept that the company's owner and its counsel never completed the same verification.
3. To the extent "must" overstated certainty, the Plaintiff asks the Court to read it as "the reasonable inference on this record." The Defence has offered no evidence of any route to these transactions that bypasses verification.
4. As above, attribution is independently supported by P-004 to P-007 and the Defence's admissions, and does not turn on this point.

The Plaintiff requests that the objection be overruled and that the Court decline to strike.

 

[CreeperTD]

Case Filing

Answer to Objections
Threshold matter
The Response to the Order to Show Cause is a written submission of argument, filed because the Court demanded it under Rule 1.9. It is not witness testimony and it is not a question put to a witness. The Objections Guide defines "Assumes facts not in evidence" in terms of a question that presumes something unproven. It defines "Speculation" in terms of a witness testifying about things they did not directly observe. Neither describes a filing by counsel.


Rule 6.3.1 allows objections against arguments, but only where the objection is accurate to its description, and it says objections "cannot be used outside of their intended purpose." Neither objection is on the Rule 6.3.2 list of non-witness objections either.


The Court's Order also told the Plaintiff that it "must instead argue that the connections exist before the court." The Defence now asks the Court to strike that very argument. Whether an inference from an exhibit is persuasive goes to weight, which the Court will decide at verdict. It is not a ground for striking.


Answer to Objection 1 – Assumes Facts Not in Evidence

1. The objection attacks a proposition the Plaintiff did not make. Point A says the Defendant was connected to the corporate accounts through the withdrawals recorded in P-004. Point B states expressly that ownership or control of those accounts is immaterial. The Plaintiff does not claim P-004 proves ownership of the corporate accounts. It shows receipt of funds withdrawn from them, which answers the Court's question and is what conversion requires: dominion over the funds, not title to the source account.
2. The underlying facts are in evidence and largely uncontested. The Defence's Answer affirms that the transactions were abnormal, repeated and in rapid succession (¶2). It affirms that the withdrawals originated from firm capital accounts (¶3) and that none were authorised (¶4). On whether administrative records linked the destination to the Defendant's account (¶3), the Defence neither affirmed nor denied. Under Rule 3.2(3), that operates as no contest for verdict and summary judgment purposes.
3. Under Rule 4.6, logs and records are presumed correct unless challenged. The Defence has challenged P-004 only by argument and has stated it has no evidence or witnesses to offer.

Answer to Objection 2 – Speculation (the "visual glitch" inference)

1. The threshold matter applies. This is counsel's argument, not testimony. The quoted statement also appears in Point C of the Response, not Point B as the objection states.
2. The inference is drawn from evidence. P-009 and P-010 show two accounts whose holders are not disputed, the company's owner and the attorney with back-end access. Both carry the same "Unverified" label while actively transacting. The reasonable inference is that the label does not distinguish legitimate holders from illegitimate ones. If the Court prefers not to adopt the word "glitch," the argument still stands on narrower ground: on this record, the label tells the Court nothing about whose account it is.
3. The Defence's own sole defence (Part II.1 of its Answer) asks the Court to infer "significant material concern" about identity from that same label alone, with no evidence of what the label means. The Defence has disclaimed any further evidence or witnesses. An inference resting on two exhibits cannot be less permissible than one resting on none.
4. Attribution does not depend on the label. It rests on P-007, which shows the Defendant as owner of the receiving account. It also rests on the Defence's admission (Answer ¶8) that the Defendant made statements acknowledging approximately $600,000.

Answer to Objection 3 – Speculation (the verification inference)

1. The threshold matter applies.
2. The objection finds a contradiction that does not exist. P-011 shows the site is gated behind a "please verify" screen until a Minecraft account is linked. P-009 and P-010 show accounts of actively transacting, undisputed users also displaying "Unverified." These exhibits are consistent: the label does not track whether the gate was passed. They do not undermine the inference from P-011. They explain why the Defence's reliance on the label is misplaced. The Defence's reading would require the Court to accept that the company's owner and its counsel never completed the same verification.
3. To the extent "must" overstated certainty, the Plaintiff asks the Court to read it as "the reasonable inference on this record." The Defence has offered no evidence of any route to these transactions that bypasses verification.
4. As above, attribution is independently supported by P-004 to P-007 and the Defence's admissions, and does not turn on this point.

The Plaintiff requests that the objection be overruled and that the Court decline to strike.

Counselor SplashyAlpaca77 is hereby held in Contempt of Court for significantly editing a court filing without permission from the Presiding Officer. This edit completely changed the arguments made by the Counselor, and this bad faith action shall result in their entire response being struck from the record. Counselor shall pay a fine of 20 Penalty Units and serve 5 minutes in jail.

Let this serve as a warning to all that edits cannot be made at will except for small corrections, and that all edits must always be declared to the Presiding Officer in all the courts of Redmont.

 

[SplashyAlpaca77]

Counselor SplashyAlpaca77 is hereby held in Contempt of Court for significantly editing a court filing without permission from the Presiding Officer. This edit completely changed the arguments made by the Counselor, and this bad faith action shall result in their entire response being struck from the record. Counselor shall pay a fine of 20 Penalty Units and serve 5 minutes in jail.

Let this serve as a warning to all that edits cannot be made at will except for small corrections, and that all edits must always be declared to the Presiding Officer in all the courts of Redmont.

Apologies, Your Honor.
I had accidently pressed control enter whilst trying to press shift enter. May I still respond to the objection?

 

[CreeperTD]

Apologies, Your Honor.
I had accidently pressed control enter whilst trying to press shift enter. May I still respond to the objection?

No. As stated, the edits were significant, changing the arguments completely from a version that was clearly made as a full response. This attempt to deceive the court must be punished.

Spoiler: Edit by Plaintiff

 

[CreeperTD]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

Your Honor,
In the Plaintiff's 'Response to Order to Show Cause' (Point A), the Plaintiff asserts that "This evidence is directly linking the Defendant to the corporate accounts, as they received the money from them", with the phrase "This evidence" referring to P-004. However, the Plaintiff's assumptions go beyond what the exhibit itself establishes by asserting that an alleged transaction within the Plaintiff's banking system automatically proves ownership or control of the corporate account by the Defendant.

Therefore, the Defendant respectfully requests the Court to strike the Plaintiff's assertion of P-004 as "linking the Defendant to the corporate accounts", when the exhibit itself does not establish that proposition.

Objection overruled. The Plaintiff has stated these as facts to the court as a response to an Order to Show Cause. As will be seen below, the Defense shall have the opportunity to dispute these facts during the course of proceedings.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - SPECULATION

Your Honor,
In Point B, the Plaintiff asserts that P-009 and P-010 "prove that the 'unverified' tag is merely a visual glitch," relying on screenshots of other accounts that show an “Unverified” status alongside active banking activity. However, P-009 and P-010 merely demonstrate that accounts with an “Unverified” designation can have transaction activity recorded in their banking system. Neither exhibit provides a technical explanation for why the designation appears, nor does either tangibly establish that the designation is erroneous or merely cosmetic.

By utilizing this line of argument, the Plaintiff is asking the Court to make an unproven factual inference that the “Unverified” designation is merely a visual glitch, even though the plain existence of banking activity alongside this designation does not, by itself, establish that explanation.

Accordingly, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court strike the Plaintiff's speculative characterization of the “Unverified” designation.

Objection sustained in part. While the response is adequate for the purposes of answering the court's questions, it is reasonable to dispute that this is a fact.

As such, the Court orders that the additional facts established throughout their response to the Court's Order be added to the Plaintiff's set of facts through a Motion to Amend in order to allow the Defense Counsel to dispute them officially. Plaintiff shall be given 24 hours to do so.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - SPECULATION

Your Honor,
Within Point C of the Plaintiff's 'Response to Order to Show Cause', the Plaintiff makes the conclusion that "Thus, in order for the Defendant to have acted as we proved they have, they must link their MC account and be 'verified'" (Words emboldened for emphasis), relying on P-011 as the evidence that all accounts need to be verified before transacting.

While P-011 demonstrates that the Plaintiff's website has a verification process, it does not establish that verification was necessarily required to perform the alleged transactions at hand. This is further complicated by P-009 and P-010, which show “Unverified” accounts alongside recorded banking activity, contradicting the Plaintiff's own statements. Therefore, the Plaintiff's conclusion that the Defendant "must" have been verified requires a significant inference between the currently unlinked concepts of the bank's verification procedures and the account attributions within it.

Accordingly, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court strike the inferred conclusion the Plaintiff baselessly draws from their statements regarding P-011 in Point C.

Objection overruled. This fact will be able to be disputed by the Defendant once the Plaintiff complies with the court's above order.

 

[SplashyAlpaca77]

Case Filing

Motion To Amend
Pursuant to Your Honor's response to objections and Court Rule 3.3, I would like permission to modify the complaint to add facts and evidence supporting them.
FACTS:
13. IsrealiDefenseForces was owned by an account with the Minecraft username schmuck(P-008).
14. The "unverified" tag is a simple visual glitch, evidenced by the fact that all accounts have it. For reference, P-009 and P-010, the lawyer's account and owner's account, both show the tag, despite both being verified and having roles.
15. You are unable to access the bank and enter inputs, as the Defendant did, unless your account is verified(P-011).
These facts are supplemental, and do not alter the claims or prayer for relief.
Evidence:
P-008,P-009,P-010, and P-011 are all added to prove the above facts.

Spoiler: P-008

View attachment 100653

Spoiler: P-009

View attachment 100654

Spoiler: P-010

View attachment 100655

Spoiler: P-011

View attachment 100658

 

[CreeperTD]

Case Filing

Motion To Amend
Pursuant to Your Honor's response to objections and Court Rule 3.3, I would like permission to modify the complaint to add facts and evidence supporting them.
FACTS:
13. IsrealiDefenseForces was owned by an account with the Minecraft username schmuck(P-008).
14. The "unverified" tag is a simple visual glitch, evidenced by the fact that all accounts have it. For reference, P-009 and P-010, the lawyer's account and owner's account, both show the tag, despite both being verified and having roles.
15. You are unable to access the bank and enter inputs, as the Defendant did, unless your account is verified(P-011).
These facts are supplemental, and do not alter the claims or prayer for relief.
Evidence:
P-008,P-009,P-010, and P-011 are all added to prove the above facts.

Spoiler: P-008

View attachment 100653

Spoiler: P-009

View attachment 100654

Spoiler: P-010

View attachment 100655

Spoiler: P-011

View attachment 100658

Granted, however the files are not directly uploaded to this post. Given that Plaintiff's counsel has changed, the court grants permission for current counsel to repost the complaint in this thread with these requested changes. Also, please stop formatting all posts as a complaint using case tags, look at the Templates page to see how to properly format motions.

 

[SplashyAlpaca77]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Pellanth Credit & Banking (Represented by lao19)
Plaintiff

v.

Schmuck (Minecraft Username: schmuck)
Defendant

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

This action arises from the unauthorized acquisition and retention of approximately Five Hundred Eighty Eight Thousand Dollars ($588,000) belonging to Pellanth Company through the exploitation of a vulnerability within the DemocracyCraft banking system. The funds were transferred through repeated withdrawal transactions and ultimately linked to the Defendant's account.

The conduct at issue caused significant financial harm to Pellanth Company, disrupted business operations, deprived the company of access to its property, and negatively affected a substantial number of individuals who relied upon the company’s continued operation. The Defendant has retained the benefit of funds that were neither earned nor lawfully obtained and has failed to restore those funds despite notice of the issue.

The Plaintiff therefore seeks damages resulting from the disruption caused by the Defendant's actions, and injunctive relief necessary to preserve assets pending final judgment.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Pellanth Company is a duly registered business operating within the Commonwealth of Redmont.
2. Plaintiff is represented in this matter by lao19. (consent provided below)
3. Defendant Schmuck, Minecraft username "schmuck," is a player subject to the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Redmont and the authority of this Court.

II. FACTS

1. Pellanth Company maintained substantial funds within the DemocracyCraft banking system for the purpose of conducting lawful business operations.
2. On or about June 23, 2026, a series of abnormal and unauthorized withdrawal transactions were recorded within the banking system. These transactions occurred repeatedly and in rapid succession.
3. Transaction records show numerous withdrawals originating from firm capital accounts. Administrative records subsequently linked the destination of the transferred funds to the Defendant's account.
4. The transactions were not authorized by Pellanth Company and were not conducted pursuant to any contract, loan agreement, employment agreement, or other lawful arrangement involving Pellanth Company and the Defendant.
5. As a result of these transfers, approximately Five Hundred Eighty Eight Thousand Dollars ($588,000) was removed from the control of Pellanth Company.
6. The amount taken represented a substantial portion of company assets.The unauthorized transfers severely impaired the company's ability to conduct ordinary business operations, thus affecting approximately one hundred individuals who relied upon the company and its services.
7. Following discovery of the incident, company representatives conducted an investigation into the source and destination of the missing funds. The investigation identified repeated transactions associated with the Defendant and administrative banking records further corroborated that the Defendant's account received the disputed funds.
8. Statements made following the incident acknowledged the existence of approximately six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000) in disputed funds.
9. At no point did Pellanth Company consent to the Defendant obtaining or retaining the transferred funds.
10. The Defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the funds did not belong to him and despite notice of the dispute, the funds have not been returned in full. The Defendant continues to benefit from property rightfully belonging to Pellanth Company.
11. Plaintiff has suffered significant financial losses, operational disruption, loss of business opportunities, administrative expenses, investigative costs, and reputational harm as a result of the Defendant's conduct.
12. Unless restrained by this Court, there exists a risk that the disputed funds may be spent, transferred, concealed, dissipated, or otherwise rendered unrecoverable before final judgment.
13. IsrealiDefenseForces was owned by an account with the Minecraft username schmuck(P-008).
14. The "unverified" tag is a simple visual glitch, evidenced by the fact that all accounts have it. For reference, P-009 and P-010, the lawyer's account and owner's account, both show the tag, despite both being verified and having roles.
15. You are unable to access the bank and enter inputs, as the Defendant did, unless your account is verified(P-011).

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT I – CONVERSION

1. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding allegations as though fully stated herein.
2. Plaintiff possessed a lawful ownership interest in the funds removed from its accounts.
3. Defendant exercised dominion and control over those funds.
4. Such control was inconsistent with Plaintiff's ownership rights.
5. Defendant's actions deprived Plaintiff of possession, use, and enjoyment of its property.
6. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff suffered substantial damages.
7. Defendant is liable for the full value of the converted property.

COUNT II – UNJUST ENRICHMENT

1. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding allegations as though fully stated herein.
2. Defendant received a substantial financial benefit.
3. The benefit was obtained through transfers not authorized by Plaintiff.
4. Defendant's retention of those funds would be inequitable and contrary to principles of fairness and justice.

COUNT III – INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS OPERATIONS

1. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding allegations as though fully stated herein.
2. Defendant's conduct directly disrupted the ordinary operations of Pellanth Company.
3. The loss of funds impaired the company's ability to conduct business, meet obligations, and provide services.
4. The disruption affected approximately one hundred individuals connected to the company's operations.
5. Plaintiff suffered economic losses and operational damages as a direct result of Defendant's actions.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Court:

Compensatory damages for loss of business to PC&B clients in an amount not less than Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000).
Consequential damages of One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000) for worsening conditions caused by this theft.
Punitive damages for the theft in the amount of Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000)
Any additional relief the Court deems just, proper, and equitable.

EVIDENCE

Exhibit A – Transaction ledger showing repeated capital withdrawal transactions. P-002s through to P-007s

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Exhibit B – Administrative banking panel identifying the Defendant's account as recipient of the disputed funds. P-002 through P-007s

Spoiler: P-004

Spoiler: P-005

Spoiler: P-006

Spoiler: P-007

Exhibit C – Statements acknowledging the existence of approximately $600,000 in disputed funds. P-001s

Spoiler: P-001

Additional evidence, added here:

Spoiler: P-008

Spoiler: P-009

Spoiler: P-010

Spoiler: P-011

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 1st Day of October 2026.

 

[Pepecuu]

Case Filing

Motion To Amend
Pursuant to Your Honor's response to objections and Court Rule 3.3, I would like permission to modify the complaint to add facts and evidence supporting them.
FACTS:
13. IsrealiDefenseForces was owned by an account with the Minecraft username schmuck(P-008).
14. The "unverified" tag is a simple visual glitch, evidenced by the fact that all accounts have it. For reference, P-009 and P-010, the lawyer's account and owner's account, both show the tag, despite both being verified and having roles.
15. You are unable to access the bank and enter inputs, as the Defendant did, unless your account is verified(P-011).
These facts are supplemental, and do not alter the claims or prayer for relief.
Evidence:
P-008,P-009,P-010, and P-011 are all added to prove the above facts.

Spoiler: P-008

View attachment 100653

Spoiler: P-009

View attachment 100654

Spoiler: P-010

View attachment 100655

Spoiler: P-011

View attachment 100658

Your Honor,

As these are additional facts added after the Defence's Answer to Complaint, the Defence would like to request to amend its own Answer to Complaint to reflect these new filings.

 

[CreeperTD]

Your Honor,

As these are additional facts added after the Defence's Answer to Complaint, the Defence would like to request to amend its own Answer to Complaint to reflect these new filings.

Make a motion to amend.

 

[Pepecuu]

Make a motion to amend.

Motion

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

Your Honor,

Given that the Plaintiff has made material changes to their case filing regarding the facts that they allege, the Defence respectfully requests to amend our Answer to Complaint to appropriately affirm or dispute the Plaintiff's new facts.

The proposed amendments shall be as follows.
1. The following sentences shall be appended under "I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT", Point 12.

Spoiler: Additions I

13. The Defence denies that the in-game firm "IsrealiDefenseForces" was owned by an account with the Minecraft username schmuck. This is shown by a query the Defence ran to the DemocracyCraft Business Plugin, attached below. (D-001)
14. The Defence cannot affirm or deny that the "unverified" tag is a simple visual glitch. Despite the evidence within P-009 and P-010, the Defence asserts that the possibility of a small sample size of three (including the alleged account of the Defendant) unverified accounts does not immediately rule out any technical limitations of the Plaintiff's banking system. Additionally, the Defence lacks the permissions required to verify that "all accounts have it" (as alleged by the Plaintiff's updated Case Filing).
15. The Defence cannot affirm or deny that the Defendant was unable to access the bank and enter inputs unless their account is verified, as the Defence does not have access to test the Plaintiff's banking systems as a potential user in that scenario.

2. The following sentence shall be appended under the contents of "II. DEFENCES".

Spoiler: Additions II

III. EVIDENCES

Spoiler: D-001

3. The following sentence shall be amended under the newly added "III. EVIDENCES" in Point 2. (The words highlighted in Yellow are to be removed) -> Yellow was used due to the standard Red colour's lack of contrast between the background colour of the spoiler and the text.

Spoiler: Additions III

The Defence has no additional evidence to present to the Court, or witnesses to call upon at this time.

 

[CreeperTD]

Motion

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

Your Honor,

Given that the Plaintiff has made material changes to their case filing regarding the facts that they allege, the Defence respectfully requests to amend our Answer to Complaint to appropriately affirm or dispute the Plaintiff's new facts.

The motion to amend should include the specific amendments being made in detail. Please edit this motion to do so.

 

[Pepecuu]

The motion to amend should include the specific amendments being made in detail. Please edit this motion to do so.

The Defence's motion to amend has been edited to add specificity to its proposed amendments. Thank you for your understanding, Your Honor.

 

[CreeperTD]

The Defence's motion to amend has been edited to add specificity to its proposed amendments. Thank you for your understanding, Your Honor.

The edited motion is granted. Please make the changes at this time.

 

[CreeperTD]

Discovery is now over. Seeing as no witnesses have been called by either side, this Court shall proceed directly to Closing Statements. Plaintiff has 72 hours to submit their Closing Statement.

For the purposes of filing a Motion to Dismiss, any that may only be filed before Opening Statements may be filed at this time.

 

[Pepecuu]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Pellanth Credit & Banking (Represented by lao19)
Plaintiff

v.

Schmuck (Minecraft Username: schmuck)
Defendant

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF



I. PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Pellanth Company is a duly registered business operating within the Commonwealth of Redmont.
2. Plaintiff is represented in this matter by lao19. (consent provided below)
3. Defendant Schmuck, Minecraft username "schmuck," is a player subject to the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Redmont and the authority of this Court.

II. FACTS

1. Pellanth Company maintained substantial funds within the DemocracyCraft banking system for the purpose of conducting lawful business operations.
2. On or about June 23, 2026, a series of abnormal and unauthorized withdrawal transactions were recorded within the banking system. These transactions occurred repeatedly and in rapid succession.
3. Transaction records show numerous withdrawals originating from firm capital accounts. Administrative records subsequently linked the destination of the transferred funds to the Defendant's account.
4. The transactions were not authorized by Pellanth Company and were not conducted pursuant to any contract, loan agreement, employment agreement, or other lawful arrangement involving Pellanth Company and the Defendant.
5. As a result of these transfers, approximately Five Hundred Eighty Eight Thousand Dollars ($588,000) was removed from the control of Pellanth Company.
6. The amount taken represented a substantial portion of company assets.The unauthorized transfers severely impaired the company's ability to conduct ordinary business operations, thus affecting approximately one hundred individuals who relied upon the company and its services.
7. Following discovery of the incident, company representatives conducted an investigation into the source and destination of the missing funds. The investigation identified repeated transactions associated with the Defendant and administrative banking records further corroborated that the Defendant's account received the disputed funds.
8. Statements made following the incident acknowledged the existence of approximately six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000) in disputed funds.
9. At no point did Pellanth Company consent to the Defendant obtaining or retaining the transferred funds.
10. The Defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the funds did not belong to him and despite notice of the dispute, the funds have not been returned in full. The Defendant continues to benefit from property rightfully belonging to Pellanth Company.
11. Plaintiff has suffered significant financial losses, operational disruption, loss of business opportunities, administrative expenses, investigative costs, and reputational harm as a result of the Defendant's conduct.
12. Unless restrained by this Court, there exists a risk that the disputed funds may be spent, transferred, concealed, dissipated, or otherwise rendered unrecoverable before final judgment.
13. IsrealiDefenseForces was owned by an account with the Minecraft username schmuck(P-008).
14. The "unverified" tag is a simple visual glitch, evidenced by the fact that all accounts have it. For reference, P-009 and P-010, the lawyer's account and owner's account, both show the tag, despite both being verified and having roles.
15. You are unable to access the bank and enter inputs, as the Defendant did, unless your account is verified(P-011).

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT I – CONVERSION

1. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding allegations as though fully stated herein.
2. Plaintiff possessed a lawful ownership interest in the funds removed from its accounts.
3. Defendant exercised dominion and control over those funds.
4. Such control was inconsistent with Plaintiff's ownership rights.
5. Defendant's actions deprived Plaintiff of possession, use, and enjoyment of its property.
6. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff suffered substantial damages.
7. Defendant is liable for the full value of the converted property.

COUNT II – UNJUST ENRICHMENT

1. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding allegations as though fully stated herein.
2. Defendant received a substantial financial benefit.
3. The benefit was obtained through transfers not authorized by Plaintiff.
4. Defendant's retention of those funds would be inequitable and contrary to principles of fairness and justice.

COUNT III – INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS OPERATIONS

1. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding allegations as though fully stated herein.
2. Defendant's conduct directly disrupted the ordinary operations of Pellanth Company.
3. The loss of funds impaired the company's ability to conduct business, meet obligations, and provide services.
4. The disruption affected approximately one hundred individuals connected to the company's operations.
5. Plaintiff suffered economic losses and operational damages as a direct result of Defendant's actions.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Court:

Compensatory damages for loss of business to PC&B clients in an amount not less than Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000).
Consequential damages of One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000) for worsening conditions caused by this theft.
Punitive damages for the theft in the amount of Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000)
Any additional relief the Court deems just, proper, and equitable.

EVIDENCE

Exhibit A – Transaction ledger showing repeated capital withdrawal transactions. P-002s through to P-007s

Spoiler: P-002

View attachment 100763

Spoiler: P-003

View attachment 100764

Exhibit B – Administrative banking panel identifying the Defendant's account as recipient of the disputed funds. P-002 through P-007s

Spoiler: P-004

View attachment 100765

Spoiler: P-005

View attachment 100766

Spoiler: P-006

View attachment 100767

Spoiler: P-007

View attachment 100768

Exhibit C – Statements acknowledging the existence of approximately $600,000 in disputed funds. P-001s

Spoiler: P-001

View attachment 100769

Additional evidence, added here:

Spoiler: P-008

View attachment 100770

Spoiler: P-009

View attachment 100771

Spoiler: P-010

View attachment 100772

Spoiler: P-011

View attachment 100773

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 1st Day of October 2026.

Answer to Complaint

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

Pellanth Credit & Banking
Plaintiff

v.

Schmuck
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defence cannot affirm or deny that Pellanth Credit & Banking (referred to by the Plaintiff as "Pellanth Company") maintained "substantial" funds within the DemocracyCraft banking system for the purpose of conducting lawful business operations.
2. The Defence affirms that about June 23, 2026, a series of abnormal and unauthorized withdrawal transactions were recorded within the banking system. The Defence also affirms these alleged transactions occurred repeatedly and in rapid succession.
3. The Defence affirms that transaction records show numerous withdrawals originating from firm capital accounts. However, the Defence cannot affirm or deny that the administrative records subsequently linked the destination of the transferred funds to the Defendant's in-game account.
4. The Defence affirms that the transactions were not authorized by Pellanth Company and were not conducted pursuant to any contract, loan agreement, employment agreement, or other lawful arrangement involving Pellanth Company and the Defendant.
5. The Defence cannot affirm nor deny that as a result of these transfers, approximately Five Hundred Eighty Eight Thousand Dollars ($588,000) was removed from the control of Pellanth Company.
6. The Defence cannot affirm nor deny that the amount taken represented a substantial portion of company assets, as the Defence presently lacks sufficient knowledge regarding the Plaintiff's internal finances and operations. Furthermore, the Defence cannot affirm nor deny that unauthorized transfers severely impaired the company's ability to conduct ordinary business operations, which the Plaintiff alleges would have affected approximately one hundred individuals who relied upon the company and its services.
7. The Defence cannot affirm or deny that company representatives had conducted an investigation into the source and destination of the missing funds, as the Defence does not have access, nor have any Plaintiff evidence to suggest that an investigation was conducted by company representatives. However, the Defence denies that the Plaintiff has identified repeated transactions associated with the Defendant specifically using independent evidence, and denies that their administrative banking records further corroborates that the Defendant's account received the disputed funds, due to the lack of external auditing or authentication regarding the Plaintiff's internal systems and their data.
8. The Defence affirms that the Defendant made statements acknowledging the existence of approximately six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000), however cannot affirm or deny that these funds are disputed.
9. The Defence affirms that to its knowledge, at no point did Pellanth Company consent to the Defendant obtaining or retaining any funds, but cannot affirm or deny that the Defendant was specifically transferred funds.
10. The Defence denies that the knowledge alone of whether the Defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the funds did not belong to him establishes that the Defendant obtained or retained the specific property alleged by the Plaintiff. The Defence cannot affirm or deny that the Defendant continues to benefit from property rightfully belonging to Pellanth Company.
11. The Defence denies that the Plaintiff has suffered significant financial losses, operational disruption, loss of business opportunities, administrative expenses, investigative costs, and reputational harm due to conduct attributable to the Defendant.
12. The Defence denies that the evidence presently identified by the Plaintiff sufficiently establishes a risk that the disputed funds will be spent, transferred, concealed, dissipated, or otherwise rendered unrecoverable before final judgment so as to justify extraordinary or interim relief.
13. The Defence denies that the in-game firm "IsrealiDefenseForces" was owned by an account with the Minecraft username schmuck. This is shown by a query the Defence ran to the DemocracyCraft Business Plugin, attached below. (D-001)
14. The Defence cannot affirm or deny that the "unverified" tag is a simple visual glitch. Despite the evidence within P-009 and P-010, the Defence asserts that the possibility of a small sample size of three (including the alleged account of the Defendant) unverified accounts does not immediately rule out any technical limitations of the Plaintiff's banking system. Additionally, the Defence lacks the permissions required to verify that "all accounts have it" (as alleged by the Plaintiff's updated Case Filing).
15. The Defence cannot affirm or deny that the Defendant was unable to access the bank and enter inputs unless their account is verified, as the Defence does not have access to test the Plaintiff's banking systems as a potential user in that scenario.

II. DEFENCES
1. Failure to attribute the account in question to the Defendant
The Plaintiff relies upon their own banking records identifying a destination account as the recipient of the disputed transactions. However, the Plaintiff's own system identifies that account as “unverified.” The Defendant submits that the unverified account designation raises significant material concern regarding the identity of the account holder.

III. EVIDENCES

Spoiler: D-001

The Defence has no witnesses to call upon at this time.

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 4th day of October 2026.

 

[Pepecuu]

Discovery is now over. Seeing as no witnesses have been called by either side, this Court shall proceed directly to Closing Statements. Plaintiff has 72 hours to submit their Closing Statement.

For the purposes of filing a Motion to Dismiss, any that may only be filed before Opening Statements may be filed at this time.

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY

Your Honor,
Despite this motion contradicting the Defence's own earlier Motion to end discovery early, the Defence believes the change in the Plaintiff's counsel did not allow them to utilize the full 5 days of discovery effectively. Should the motion be acceptable, the Defence proposes an extension of 24 hours to ensure fairness to all parties in representing their arguments, and to avoid any unnecessary appeals on procedural errors.

 

[CreeperTD]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY

Your Honor,
Despite this motion contradicting the Defence's own earlier Motion to end discovery early, the Defence believes the change in the Plaintiff's counsel did not allow them to utilize the full 5 days of discovery effectively. Should the motion be acceptable, the Defence proposes an extension of 24 hours to ensure fairness to all parties in representing their arguments, and to avoid any unnecessary appeals on procedural errors.

Does Plaintiff wish to extend discovery @SplashyAlpaca77?

 

[SplashyAlpaca77]

Does Plaintiff wish to extend discovery @SplashyAlpaca77?

Yes, Your Honor.