Lawsuit: Pending PlayerData v. Jane_Street [2026] DCR 128

[PlayerData]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


PlayerData
Plaintiff

v.

Jane_Street
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

The Defendant entered into a secured loan agreement with BARC, received $13,000 in loan proceeds, and agreed to make eight weekly payments of $1,660.

The Defendant made one payment of $1,660 on June 14, 2026, but failed to make the subsequent required payments and entered default under the express terms of the agreement.

BARC subsequently transferred and assigned the debt, collateral rights, and associated enforcement rights to PlayerData through a written assignment agreement. PlayerData paid the agreed purchase price and is now the lawful owner of the debt.

The Plaintiff requests judgment for the unpaid contractual balance and enforcement against the golden drill pledged as collateral.

I. PARTIES
1. PlayerData is the Plaintiff in this matter and is appearing Pro Se.
2. The Plaintiff is the lawful assignee and current owner of the debt arising from the loan agreement between BARC and Jane_Street.
3. BARC was the original creditor and lender under the loan agreement.
4. Jane_Street is the Defendant and the borrower who entered into the loan agreement.
5. The Defendant received the full loan proceeds, made one payment of $1,660, and failed to make the subsequent required payments.
6. BARC subsequently assigned the Defendant’s debt, collateral rights, and associated enforcement rights to the Plaintiff.

II. FACTS
1. On May 24, 2026, the Defendant contacted BARC seeking a loan to establish a mining company and purchase a golden drill.
2. The Defendant initially requested a loan of $15,000.
3. BARC informed the Defendant that collateral would generally be required for the loan.
4. The Defendant proposed using the golden drill purchased with the loan proceeds as collateral.
5. After discussions concerning the value of the drill, the Defendant located a golden drill offered for $13,000.
6. BARC agreed to offer the Defendant a secured loan of $13,000.
7. On June 12, 2026, BARC presented the Defendant with the final loan terms.
8. The final loan terms were:

a. A total loan principal of $13,000;

b. A loan duration of eight weeks;

c. A stated interest rate of 1.65% per week;

d. Eight weekly payments of $1,660;

e. A first payment due on Friday, June 19, 2026;

f. A seven-day grace period before late consequences;

g. Default after a payment remained late for two weeks; and

h. A golden drill purchased using the loan proceeds pledged as collateral in the event of default.

9. The Defendant reviewed the corrected payment date and expressly stated, “then yes i agree to these terms!”
10. The Defendant thereby accepted the final loan terms.
11. On June 12, 2026, BARC transferred $13,000 to the Defendant.
12. The transaction confirmation stated:

.adisfatm -> Jane_Street

You have sent $13,000 to player: Jane_Street

13. The Defendant acknowledged receipt of the funds and thanked BARC.
14. BARC instructed the Defendant to make repayments to the business named BARC.
15. The Defendant confirmed and accepted those repayment instructions.
16. The first scheduled payment of $1,660 became due on June 19, 2026.
17. On June 14, 2026, the Defendant paid BARC $1,660, satisfying the first scheduled payment.
18. The second scheduled payment of $1,660 became due on June 26, 2026.
19. The Defendant failed to make the payment due on June 26, 2026.
20. The Defendant subsequently left DemocracyCraft and attempted to close the support ticket concerning the loan.
21. On July 8, 2026, BARC notified the Defendant that it considered the loan to be in default.
22. The payment due on June 26, 2026, remained unpaid for two weeks, placing the loan in default under the express terms of the agreement on July 10, 2026.
23. The records show that the Defendant made one payment of $1,660 on June 14, 2026, and made no subsequent payments toward the loan.
24. The agreement required eight payments of $1,660.
25. The total scheduled contractual repayment was therefore $13,280.
26. After crediting the Defendant’s payment of $1,660, the unpaid contractual balance is $11,620.
27. The Plaintiff does not seek any unspecified late fee because the agreement did not state a particular late-fee amount or calculation.
28. The Defendant also agreed that the golden drill purchased with the loan proceeds would serve as collateral upon default.
29. On July 20, 2026, BARC executed a written agreement assigning the debt to PlayerData.
30. PlayerData accepted the assignment and paid BARC the agreed purchase price of $90,000.
31. The assignment transferred BARC’s rights and interests in the outstanding loan balance, the loan agreement, the default provisions, the collateral provision, and the right to pursue collection.
32. The written assignment agreement identifies PlayerData as the current owner and assignee of the debt.
33. The assignment did not increase or otherwise alter the Defendant’s original contractual obligation.
34. The Defendant has made no further payments to either BARC or PlayerData after the payment of $1,660 on June 14, 2026.
35. The amount in controversy is $11,620 and is within the jurisdiction of the District Court.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. A valid contract existed between BARC and the Defendant.
2. BARC made a definite offer containing the loan amount, payment schedule, interest rate, due date, grace period, default provision, and collateral requirement.
3. The Defendant clearly and unambiguously accepted those terms.
4. Consideration existed because BARC provided the Defendant with $13,000 and the Defendant promised repayment and pledged collateral.
5. The parties intended to create binding legal obligations.
6. BARC performed its contractual obligations by transferring the full $13,000 loan principal to the Defendant.
7. The Defendant made one payment of $1,660 but breached the agreement by failing to make the subsequent required payments.
8. The scheduled payment due on June 26, 2026, remained overdue for two weeks, constituting default under the express terms of the agreement.
9. The Defendant’s departure from DemocracyCraft did not satisfy or extinguish the contractual obligation.
10. BARC possessed an enforceable right to collect the unpaid loan obligation.
11. BARC transferred that right to PlayerData through a written assignment agreement supported by payment.
12. PlayerData is therefore the current owner of the debt and the proper party to pursue collection.
13. After crediting the Defendant’s payment of $1,660, the unpaid contractual balance is $11,620.
14. The Defendant expressly agreed that the golden drill purchased using the loan proceeds would serve as collateral upon default.
15. The Defendant entered default when the payment due on June 26, 2026, remained overdue for two weeks.
16. The contractual condition permitting enforcement against the collateral has therefore occurred.
17. The collateral rights were transferred to PlayerData through the written assignment.
18. The Plaintiff is entitled to enforce the debt and seek possession, seizure, sale, or valuation of the golden drill.
19. Any value recovered from the golden drill should be credited against the outstanding judgment to prevent double recovery.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. Judgment in favor of PlayerData and against Jane_Street.
2. A declaration that the Defendant breached the loan agreement.
3. A declaration that PlayerData is the lawful assignee and current owner of the debt.
4. Compensatory damages totaling $11,620.
5. Alternatively, the precise unpaid contractual balance established by the evidence.
6. A declaration that the loan is in default.
7. An order requiring the Defendant to surrender the golden drill pledged as collateral.
8. Authorization for the appropriate government authority to seize the collateral if the Defendant does not surrender it voluntarily.
9. Authorization for the collateral to be valued or sold, with its value credited against the judgment.
10. Enforcement against other eligible assets legally owned by the Defendant if the golden drill cannot be located or is insufficient to satisfy the judgment.
11. Recoverable legal fees, court costs, and post-judgment interest as permitted by law.
12. An order requiring the Defendant to preserve all records concerning the loan, payments, golden drill, account balances, and any transfer or disposal of the collateral.
13. Any other legal or equitable relief the Court considers just and proper.

EVIDENCE

P-001 — Written Debt Assignment Agreement

The written agreement transferring the Defendant’s debt, collateral rights, and associated enforcement rights from BARC to PlayerData.

P-002 — Assignment Payment Proof

Transaction records proving that PlayerData paid BARC the agreed purchase price for the debt.

P-003-1 — Loan Ticket Transcript, Part 1

Screenshot showing the Defendant’s initial loan request and the parties’ discussion of collateral.

P-003-2 — Loan Ticket Transcript, Part 2

Screenshot showing the discussion concerning the golden drill, loan amount, duration, and proposed interest terms.

P-003-3 — Loan Ticket Transcript, Part 3

Screenshot showing the loan terms, correction of the first payment date, and the Defendant’s acceptance.

P-003-4 — Loan Ticket Transcript, Part 4

Screenshot showing the lowering of the loan interest rate.

P-004 — Defendant’s Acceptance and Loan Disbursement

Screenshot showing the Defendant stating, “then yes i agree to these terms!” and the transaction confirmation showing that $13,000 was sent to Jane_Street.

P-005 — Default Communications and Attempt to Close Ticket

Screenshot showing the communications concerning the loan, the attempt to close the ticket, and BARC’s July 8, 2026 statement that it considered the loan to be in default.

WITNESSES

1. adi_sfatm, who negotiated the loan, presented the final terms, transferred the funds, issued the repayment instructions, maintained the relevant payment records, communicated with the Defendant regarding the loan, and can testify concerning BARC’s ownership and assignment of the debt.
2. PlayerData, who can testify regarding the purchase of the debt, payment of the assignment price, receipt of the relevant records, and the absence of further repayment after the assignment.

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 22nd day of July 2026

 

[PlayerData]

Your Honour,

Pursuant to Court Rule 3.3, I am declaring that I have amended the Complaint.

The amendments were made to correct the formatting so that the Complaint complies with the official court template. I also reorganized the existing allegations into the required sections and clarified the exhibit labels.

The amendments do not change the underlying parties, debt, material facts, or amount of relief requested.

The original post has been updated accordingly.

 

[Talion77]

Writ of Summons

@Jane_Street is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of PlayerData v. Jane_Street [2026] DCR 128.

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.

 

[Jane_Street]

Your Honour,

Pursuant to the Writ of Summons, the Defendant, Jane_Street, hereby appears in this matter and gives notice that they intend to defend the Plaintiff's claims.

The Defendant respectfully requests the appointment of a Public Defender.

The Defendant further moves for an extension of time to file a formal Answer until after appointed counsel has entered an appearance and had a reasonable opportunity to review the case. The Defendant respectfully requests that no default judgment or inquest be entered while this request is pending.

The Defendant specifically denies the allegation that no payments were made. The Defendant possesses transaction evidence showing that Jane_Street paid BARC $1660 on 14 June 2026.

The Defendant reserves all further defences, objections, and claims for the formal Answer following consultation with appointed counsel.

By making this submission, I agree that I understand the penalties for lying in court and that I may be subject to perjury if I knowingly make a false statement.

 

[Talion77]

Your Honour,

Pursuant to the Writ of Summons, the Defendant, Jane_Street, hereby appears in this matter and gives notice that they intend to defend the Plaintiff’s claims.

The Defendant respectfully requests the appointment of a Public Defender.

The Defendant further moves for an extension of time to file a formal Answer until after appointed counsel has entered an appearance and had a reasonable opportunity to review the case. The Defendant respectfully requests that no default judgment or inquest be entered while this request is pending.

The Defendant specifically denies the allegation that no payments were made. The Defendant possesses transaction evidence showing that Jane_Street paid BARC D$1,660 on 14 June 2026.

The Defendant reserves all further defences, objections, and claims for the formal Answer following consultation with appointed counsel.

By making this submission, I agree that I understand the penalties for lying in court and that I may be subject to perjury if I knowingly make a false statement.

The requested extension is granted.

Pursuant to the Public Defence Policy of the Judiciary, a public defender may be called when the case will result in a default judgement, or if "the defendant requests a public defender and can reasonably justify compelling circumstances of hardship financial or otherwise".

As you requested a public defender, you are ordered to submit a brief to the Court explaining your compelling circumstances of hardship, financial or otherwise within 72 hours.

 

[Jane_Street]

Your Honour,

I respectfully request the appointment of a Public Defender because I currently have only $32.90 available and cannot afford private legal representation [D-002].

I am unfamiliar with Redmont's legal procedures, while the Plaintiff is legally experienced and has brought a substantial financial claim against me. The case also includes material factual disputes, including the Plaintiff's allegation that I made no payments, despite my having paid $1660 to BARC on 14 June 2026 [D-001].

Without representation, I would be placed at a significant disadvantage and may be unable to present my evidence and defences properly. I therefore respectfully request that a Public Defender be appointed and that I be given sufficient time to respond after counsel has reviewed the case.

By making this submission, I understand that knowingly making a false statement may subject me to penalties for perjury.

Evidence
D-001: Treasury transaction record showing the $1660 payment to BARC on 14 June 2026.
D-002: Treasury output showing my current balance of $32.90.

 

[Talion77]

Your Honour,

I respectfully request the appointment of a Public Defender because I currently have only $32.90 available and cannot afford private legal representation [D-002].

I am unfamiliar with Redmont's legal procedures, while the Plaintiff is legally experienced and has brought a substantial financial claim against me. The case also includes material factual disputes, including the Plaintiff's allegation that I made no payments, despite my having paid $1660 to BARC on 14 June 2026 [D-001].

Without representation, I would be placed at a significant disadvantage and may be unable to present my evidence and defences properly. I therefore respectfully request that a Public Defender be appointed and that I be given sufficient time to respond after counsel has reviewed the case.

By making this submission, I understand that knowingly making a false statement may subject me to penalties for perjury.

Evidence
D-001: Treasury transaction record showing the $1660 payment to BARC on 14 June 2026.
D-002: Treasury output showing my current balance of $32.90.

After considering all factors, the Court will assign a public defender. They shall make their presence known to the Court in due time, and file an answer to the complaint within 48 hours of indicating their presence.

 

[PlayerData]

NOTICE OF AMENDED COMPLAINT

Your Honour,

Pursuant to Court Rule 3.3, I am declaring that I have amended the Complaint.

The amendment acknowledges the Defendant’s evidence that Jane_Street paid BARC $1,660 on 14 June 2026. The allegation that the Defendant made no payments has been replaced with an allegation that the Defendant made a partial payment of $1,660 but failed to pay the remaining balance owed under the agreement.

The amount of compensation requested has accordingly been reduced from $13,000 to $11,340, representing the original amount claimed less the $1,660 payment.

The amendment does not change the parties, the underlying agreement, or the Plaintiff’s allegation that the remaining debt is in default. It only corrects the payment history and adjusts the requested relief to reflect the payment identified by the Defendant.

The original post has been updated accordingly.

 

[Talion77]

A public defender has been assigned (@KeyChunky321). They shall make their presence known within 72h.

 

[KeyChunky321]

The Public Defender representing @Jane_Street is present, your Honor

 

[Talion77]

The Public Defender representing @Jane_Street is present, your Honor

As stated earlier, you have 48 hours from your apperance to file an answer to the complaint.

 

[KeyChunky321]

Your Honor,
I'm requesting a 24-hour deadline extension due to illness. Furthermore, I wasn't able to communicate with my client, @Jane_Street.

Thank you!

 

[Talion77]

Your Honor,
I'm requesting a 24-hour deadline extension due to illness. Furthermore, I wasn't able to communicate with my client, @Jane_Street.

Thank you!

Granted.

 

[Talion77]

@KeyChunky321 is held in contempt of court and shall be fined $1200 for missing a stated deadline.

Discovery is now open for 5 days.

 

[KeyChunky321]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Motion for Summary Judgement


Your Honor,

I humbly ask for summary judgement.
The Defendant wasn’t able to communicate with me as their counsel.
From the facts I can see, this case is similar to Barclays v. Zombie_bro [2026] DCR 86, which went into
Summary Judgement and being ruled in favour of the Plaintiff.
The Public Defender Office is heavily overloaded while I’m also suffering with problems in my normal life.
Therefore, I respectfully ask for summary judgement.

Thank you.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Reconsider

Your Honor,

I respectfully ask the Court to review my Contempt of Court charge.

I. Missing a Deadline

I asked for an extension of the Deadline in #12. Reason was, among others, illness.

I know, that I should have notified the Court of ongoing illness, but I needed to put my health above the interests of Court and recover.

II. Public Defender Program

I’m representing @Jane_Street on behalf of the Public Defender Program.
As far as I’m informed, a Contempt of Court charge won’t be issued against the Public Defender as an individual, but the Program itself.
This was done in smellyboi5 v. airmailmedl814 [2026] DCR 87.
Therefore, I ask this charge to be stricken as well as the fine of $1200.

Thank you.

 

[Talion77]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Motion for Summary Judgement


Your Honor,

I humbly ask for summary judgement.
The Defendant wasn’t able to communicate with me as their counsel.
From the facts I can see, this case is similar to Barclays v. Zombie_bro [2026] DCR 86, which went into
Summary Judgement and being ruled in favour of the Plaintiff.
The Public Defender Office is heavily overloaded while I’m also suffering with problems in my normal life.
Therefore, I respectfully ask for summary judgement.

Thank you.

Does Plaintiff concur?

@PlayerData

 

[Talion77]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Reconsider

Your Honor,

I respectfully ask the Court to review my Contempt of Court charge.

I. Missing a Deadline

I asked for an extension of the Deadline in #12. Reason was, among others, illness.

I know, that I should have notified the Court of ongoing illness, but I needed to put my health above the interests of Court and recover.

II. Public Defender Program

I’m representing @Jane_Street on behalf of the Public Defender Program.
As far as I’m informed, a Contempt of Court charge won’t be issued against the Public Defender as an individual, but the Program itself.
This was done in smellyboi5 v. airmailmedl814 [2026] DCR 87.
Therefore, I ask this charge to be stricken as well as the fine of $1200.

Thank you.

On Point I, the Court declines to grant reconsideration. Defence had been given an initial deadline, to which an extension has been granted. Requesting a further extension is not a signific antadministrative burden, in fact it can be done in approximately 30 seconds. Defence did not request such an extension, while Court Procedures would mandate them to do so.

On Point II, the Court also declines to grant reconsideration. While the Defence is correct that the Public Defence Program was issued a contempt charge by the District Court in smellyboi5 v. airmailmedl814 [2026] DCR 87, there is other, higher-ranking precedent to consult. The Federal Court, in Two Guys Realty v. MasterCaelen [2026] FCR 43, issued a contempt charge to the public defender committing the offense personally. As Federal Court precedent overrides District Court precedent, the Court does not grant reconsideration.

 

[Jane_Street]

Does Plaintiff concur?

@PlayerData

Your Honour,
For clarity, I do not consent to the Motion for Summary Judgment filed on my behalf. I have since contacted my appointed Public Defender and informed them that there are defences which have not yet been presented to the Court. I have also asked counsel to withdraw the motion if procedurally possible.

Pending counsel's response, I respectfully request that the Court not rule on the motion until my counsel has had an opportunity to confer with me and address these matters.

 

[Talion77]

Your Honour,
For clarity, I do not consent to the Motion for Summary Judgment filed on my behalf. I have since contacted my appointed Public Defender and informed them that there are defences which have not yet been presented to the Court. I have also asked counsel to withdraw the motion if procedurally possible.

Pending counsel's response, I respectfully request that the Court not rule on the motion until my counsel has had an opportunity to confer with me and address these matters.

Please confer with your lawyer and indicate to the Court whether you wish to represent yourself.

Further, discovery has concluded. Plaintiff shall file their opening statement within 48 hours.

@PlayerData

 

[KeyChunky321]

Your Honor,
I withdraw my Motion for Summary Judgement.

Thank you!

 

[Talion77]

Plaintiff is held in contempt of Court and shall be fined $1200 for missing a stated deadline.

Defendant now has 48h to provide their opening statement. Any further unexcused delays will be met with another contempt charge carrying a hefty fine, the Court’s patience is growing thin.

@PlayerData @KeyChunky321

 

[KeyChunky321]

Your Honor,

I‘m requesting an extension of the deadline until Sunday, 30 August, 6 p.m. CEST due to work.

Thank you.

 

[Talion77]

Your Honor,

I‘m requesting an extension of the deadline until Sunday, 30 August, 6 p.m. CEST due to work.

Thank you.

Granted.

 

[KeyChunky321]

Your Honor,

I would like to request a re-opening of Discovery. The Defense got new evidence, that matters for the intent of the Plaintiff in this case. I will submit my opening statement after your ruling on this request in accordance with the deadline or when granted after Discovery.

Thank you.

 

[Talion77]

Your Honor,

I would like to request a re-opening of Discovery. The Defense got new evidence, that matters for the intent of the Plaintiff in this case. I will submit my opening statement after your ruling on this request in accordance with the deadline or when granted after Discovery.

Thank you.

The Court Rules and Procedures do not stipulate a method through which to re-open discovery. Further, the Court is concerned that a re-opening of discovery specifically to suit the needs of the Defendant would violate Plaintiff's right to a fair trial. Unless Plaintiff makes a statement concerning his satisfaction with the contrary, discovery will not be re-opened. You have a further 24 hours from this message to submit your opening statement.

 

[KeyChunky321]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Motion to Reconsider



Your Honor,

The Defense is humbly requesting reconsideration of the previous request to reopen Discovery. The Case ko531 v. Incarnation__ & Jakkuwu_ et. al [2026] FCR 47 is a precedent for a Discovery being reopened. In the case, the Plaintiff submitted a Motion to reopen Discovery, due to new evidence that has been produced, that wasn’t in his hands. In our case, my client sent me new evidence (Screenshots of Discord-Messages), that could be relevant for this case. The Defense acknowledges, that the situation was different.

However, considering that I, acting as a Public Defender and legal counsel of Jane_Street, decided to file a Motion for Summary Judgement, which was withdrawn later, that did generate disorder in the proceedings. It would be a fair compromise to make up for lost time between the Motion for Summary Judgment being submitted and withdrew.

We kindly ask the court for the following:

1. Either to reopen Discovery for 72 hours
2. And/or to let the Defense submit an Answer to Complaint

OR

To give the Plaintiff a deadline of 24 hours to give a statement on this Motion, if the Plaintiff concurs to reopen Discovery for 72 hours and/or to give another chance to file an Answer to Complaint.

The Defense would like to submit their Opening Statement 24 hours after the Courts ruling, if this Motion is denied.

Thank you.


EDIT: I had to delete a “We believe”, I already struck parts of the sentence, but missed something. Also I made the headline bold.

 

[KeyChunky321]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Objection - Breach of Procedure

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff has failed to provide a relevant law, which the Defendant is alleged to have broken. Therefore, Point 2.1 in Court Rules & Proc. was not met.

The Defense respectfully requests the following:

• To order the Plaintiff to amend his case filing.

OR

• If the Plaintiff does not amend his filing, to dismiss this Case with prejudice.

Thank you.

 

[Talion77]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Motion to Reconsider



Your Honor,

The Defense is humbly requesting reconsideration of the previous request to reopen Discovery. The Case ko531 v. Incarnation__ & Jakkuwu_ et. al [2026] FCR 47 is a precedent for a Discovery being reopened. In the case, the Plaintiff submitted a Motion to reopen Discovery, due to new evidence that has been produced, that wasn’t in his hands. In our case, my client sent me new evidence (Screenshots of Discord-Messages), that could be relevant for this case. The Defense acknowledges, that the situation was different.

However, considering that I, acting as a Public Defender and legal counsel of Jane_Street, decided to file a Motion for Summary Judgement, which was withdrawn later, that did generate disorder in the proceedings. It would be a fair compromise to make up for lost time between the Motion for Summary Judgment being submitted and withdrew.

We kindly ask the court for the following:

1. Either to reopen Discovery for 72 hours
2. And/or to let the Defense submit an Answer to Complaint

OR

To give the Plaintiff a deadline of 24 hours to give a statement on this Motion, if the Plaintiff concurs to reopen Discovery for 72 hours and/or to give another chance to file an Answer to Complaint.

The Defense would like to submit their Opening Statement 24 hours after the Courts ruling, if this Motion is denied.

Thank you.


EDIT: I had to delete a “We believe”, I already struck parts of the sentence, but missed something. Also I made the headline bold.

The Court grants reconsideration, and reopens Discovery for 72 hours. Additionally, I will allow the Defence to submit an answer to complaint within that same timeframe. The Court will not grant any extensions to these deadlines, as more than enough time has passed already.

 

[Talion77]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Objection - Breach of Procedure

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff has failed to provide a relevant law, which the Defendant is alleged to have broken. Therefore, Point 2.1 in Court Rules & Proc. was not met.

The Defense respectfully requests the following:

• To order the Plaintiff to amend his case filing.

OR

• If the Plaintiff does not amend his filing, to dismiss this Case with prejudice.

Thank you.

Overruled. Firstly, this should be adressed in a Motion to Dismiss, not in an Objection. Secondly, considering the nature of the Plaintiff's claim, the Court believes it to be more than clear that Plaintiff is alledging the tort of Breach of Contract, as described in the Redmont Civil Code Act.

 

[KeyChunky321]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Objection - Improper evidence, Fruit of the poisonous tree

Your Honor,

The evidence P-003-1 through P-003-4 and P-004 submitted by the Plaintiff are both conversations between BARC and the Defendant. Those information are protected by the Privacy Act §4(1)(b). As that the Plaintiff is PlayerData (a third-party) and not BARC, the Defendant has not consented to the disclosure, what would have been required due to Privacy Act §9(1)(a).

The Plaintiff could argue, that with the loan agreement being transferred (pursuant to the 31st Fact and to Privacy Act §9(1)(h): “Processing is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is a party”), the whole conversation have been transferred legally.

However, the Privacy Act §9(2) states: “Any disclosure of personal information permitted under subsection (1) must be limited to the minimum information necessary to achieve the authorized purpose.”, emphasis mine.

First, a disclosure of contract does not justify the disclosure of a whole chat conversation, as the disclosure was not consented by the Plaintiff. Second, a non-shortened discord ticket clearly exceeds the “minimum information necessary”, emphasis mine, since the negotiation process was not necessary to “achieve the authorized purpose”, emphasis mine, in this case to perform a contract, as stated in Privacy Act §9(2).

In the opinion of the Defense, the evidence the Plaintiff submitted was transferred by BARC to the Plaintiff ignoring the Privacy Act as a whole. Therefore, the action of transferring the files P-003-1 through P-003-4 and P-004 was illegal as stated in the Criminal Code Act Part III §11(1): Breach of Confidence.

BARC did disclose private information to a third-party person, as argued above, without the consent of Defendant Jane_Street (Privacy Act §9(1)(a)) or without limiting it to the necessary information (Privacy Act §9(2)). Therefore, as one of the test for Criminal Code Act Part III §11(1): Breach of Confidence has been met, the files have been transferred illegally and the Plaintiff has obtained them illegally.

The “Fruits of the poisonous tree”- Doctrine (FOPT) says, that illegally obtained evidence are inadmissible in Court (Court Guide - Objections)

The Defense asks the Court for this evidence to be stricken.

Thank you.


EDIT: Changed the hyperlink for the Criminal Code Act

 

[Talion77]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Objection - Improper evidence, Fruit of the poisonous tree

Your Honor,

The evidence P-003-1 through P-003-4 and P-004 submitted by the Plaintiff are both conversations between BARC and the Defendant. Those information are protected by the Privacy Act §4(1)(b). As that the Plaintiff is PlayerData (a third-party) and not BARC, the Defendant has not consented to the disclosure, what would have been required due to Privacy Act §9(1)(a).

The Plaintiff could argue, that with the loan agreement being transferred (pursuant to the 31st Fact and to Privacy Act §9(1)(h): “Processing is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is a party”), the whole conversation have been transferred legally.

However, the Privacy Act §9(2) states: “Any disclosure of personal information permitted under subsection (1) must be limited to the minimum information necessary to achieve the authorized purpose.”, emphasis mine.

First, a disclosure of contract does not justify the disclosure of a whole chat conversation, as the disclosure was not consented by the Plaintiff. Second, a non-shortened discord ticket clearly exceeds the “minimum information necessary”, emphasis mine, since the negotiation process was not necessary to “achieve the authorized purpose”, emphasis mine, in this case to perform a contract, as stated in Privacy Act §9(2).

In the opinion of the Defense, the evidence the Plaintiff submitted was transferred by BARC to the Plaintiff ignoring the Privacy Act as a whole. Therefore, the action of transferring the files P-003-1 through P-003-4 and P-004 was illegal as stated in the Criminal Code Act Part III §11(1): Breach of Confidence.

BARC did disclose private information to a third-party person, as argued above, without the consent of Defendant Jane_Street (Privacy Act §9(1)(a)) or without limiting it to the necessary information (Privacy Act §9(2)). Therefore, as one of the test for Criminal Code Act Part III §11(1): Breach of Confidence has been met, the files have been transferred illegally and the Plaintiff has obtained them illegally.

The “Fruits of the poisonous tree”- Doctrine (FOPT) says, that illegally obtained evidence are inadmissible in Court (Court Guide - Objections)

The Defense asks the Court for this evidence to be stricken.

Thank you.

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order to Show Cause

The Court is concerned that this Objection wholly ignores Privacy Act §6(2)(g). The enforcement of civil law claims is specifically listed as a matter which adverse impacts shall be avoided to. Defendant is ordered to demonstrate, in a filing to this Court, why said "exception" under id. §6(2)(g) does not apply.

Further, your filing appears to contain hyperlinks to the Privacy Act while it cites the Criminal Code Act. Please resolve this issue in a timely manner.

 

[KeyChunky321]

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Brief - Response to Order to Show Cause

Your Honor,

The Privacy Act §6 defines the rights every data subject has. Privacy Act §6(2) defines when those rights can be restricted due to reasons defined, for example Privacy Act §6(2)(g): “the enforcement of civil law claims”.

However, the Privacy Act §6(2)(g) does not define, when and how a Company or Organisation such as BARC is allowed to disclose data protected under Privacy Act §4.

Privacy Act §9 instead defines when an organisation is allowed to process protected data. id. §9(1) does provide the information that an organisation “may process personal information... only when at least one of the following is the case“, followed by eight reasons, (a) through (h).

"Enforcement of civil law claims" is not among them, in contrast to its explicit inclusion in §6(2)(g). Had the Congress intended to make “civil law claims” a ninth reason, they would have included the exact wording of “the enforcement of civil law claims”.

The Congress itself declared in the General Data Privacy Regulatory Fix Act, that amended the Privacy Act, that “The relationship between Section 6 and 9 in the Privacy Act could use a bit of clarity” (Reasons, General Data Privacy Regulatory Fix Act). This shows that the Congress sees both of the Sections §6 and §9 as not coherent.

id. §9(2) implements restrictions for the organisation, that any disclosure “must be limited to the minimum information necessary to achieve the authorised purpose”, which is something the data disclosed does not meet either.

Overall, the from the Court mentioned “exception” does not apply, since the Privacy Act §6 only defines the rights and their limits of a data subject. It does not say, when and how an organisation may process data, that is defined in Privacy Act §9.
The tests, that have to be met to process data are listed in Privacy Act §9(1), not in Privacy Act §6.
The rights of a data subject could theoretically be limited for a civil law claim, but therefore the tests listed in id. §9(1) have to be met and id. §9(2) have to be respected by the organisation that processes the data.
The Privacy Act §6(2)(g) restricts the rights of Jane_Street, but does not automatically authorize BARC’s disclosure, which would require a valid id. §9(1) ground, and none applies.

For these reasons, the Defense respectfully submits that Privacy Act §6(2)(g) does not authorise BARC's disclosure, and that the evidence remains inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree.


Thank you.

 

[KeyChunky321]

Answer to Complaint

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Answer to Complaint


PlayerData

Plaintiff



v.



Jane_Street

Defendant

I. ANSWER

The Defendant affirms those facts without any further notice: 1-9, 11-19, 23-25, 27 and 34

10.The Defendant affirms, that they accepted the final loan terms, but denies that a valid contract existed

20.The Defendant affirms, that they left DC and attempted to close the support ticket, but notes, that they left after the drill and it’s stored materials were destroyed in lava, therefore they believed repayment was no longer possible.

21/22.The Defendant affirms the events, but denies that valid default arose.

26.The Defendant affirms the arithmetic

28.The Defendant denies, that the drill would serve as a collateral as the Defense doubts the validity of the contract between BARC and the Defendant.

29-33.The Defendant affirms, that the agreement between BARC and the Plaintiff existed.

35.The Defendant affirms, that the case is within the jurisdiction of the District Court, but denies that the Defendant legally owes the amount of $11,620.

II. DEFENCE

The Defense would like to point out that BARC never checked the capacity of the Defendant. Capacity is one of test to be met for a legally valid contract to be formed (Contract Act §4(2)(e)). This law states that “Players with low playtime may lack the capacity to fairly enter a contract.” The Witness testimony will shed light on, if the Contract was valid or not.

III. EVIDENCE AND WITNESS LIST

Evidence:

• D-003: Message from PlayerData about this case in a public channel.
• D-004-1: PlayerData talking about “punishing them”(Jane_Street)
• D-004-2: PlayerData talking about “maximum punishment incoming”

Witness:

• Jane_Street

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 3rd day of September 2026

D-003:

Spoiler

D-004-1:

Spoiler

D-004-2:

Spoiler

NOTE: I‘m currently working on an Ipad, I hope the format for this answer with evidence meets the standards.

EDIT: Tried changing the “Spoilers”

 

[Talion77]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Objection - Improper evidence, Fruit of the poisonous tree

Your Honor,

The evidence P-003-1 through P-003-4 and P-004 submitted by the Plaintiff are both conversations between BARC and the Defendant. Those information are protected by the Privacy Act §4(1)(b). As that the Plaintiff is PlayerData (a third-party) and not BARC, the Defendant has not consented to the disclosure, what would have been required due to Privacy Act §9(1)(a).

The Plaintiff could argue, that with the loan agreement being transferred (pursuant to the 31st Fact and to Privacy Act §9(1)(h): “Processing is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is a party”), the whole conversation have been transferred legally.

However, the Privacy Act §9(2) states: “Any disclosure of personal information permitted under subsection (1) must be limited to the minimum information necessary to achieve the authorized purpose.”, emphasis mine.

First, a disclosure of contract does not justify the disclosure of a whole chat conversation, as the disclosure was not consented by the Plaintiff. Second, a non-shortened discord ticket clearly exceeds the “minimum information necessary”, emphasis mine, since the negotiation process was not necessary to “achieve the authorized purpose”, emphasis mine, in this case to perform a contract, as stated in Privacy Act §9(2).

In the opinion of the Defense, the evidence the Plaintiff submitted was transferred by BARC to the Plaintiff ignoring the Privacy Act as a whole. Therefore, the action of transferring the files P-003-1 through P-003-4 and P-004 was illegal as stated in the Criminal Code Act Part III §11(1): Breach of Confidence.

BARC did disclose private information to a third-party person, as argued above, without the consent of Defendant Jane_Street (Privacy Act §9(1)(a)) or without limiting it to the necessary information (Privacy Act §9(2)). Therefore, as one of the test for Criminal Code Act Part III §11(1): Breach of Confidence has been met, the files have been transferred illegally and the Plaintiff has obtained them illegally.

The “Fruits of the poisonous tree”- Doctrine (FOPT) says, that illegally obtained evidence are inadmissible in Court (Court Guide - Objections)

The Defense asks the Court for this evidence to be stricken.

Thank you.


EDIT: Changed the hyperlink for the Criminal Code Act

Overruled. Privacy Act §9(1) explicitly states "An organisation or agency may process personal information of a data subject protected under Section 6 only when at least one of the following is the case". Therefore, just from reading the letter of the law, for the test under such section to apply, personal information of a data subject must be protected under id. §6.

Defendant, in their response to the order to show cause issued by the Court, argues that Information protected under id. §4 is not affected by the "exceptions" under id. §6(2):

However, the Privacy Act §6(2)(g) does not define, when and how a Company or Organisation such as BARC is allowed to disclose data protected under Privacy Act §4.

The Court is puzzled by this statement. Id. §4 does not protect any information. It is merely a section defining key terms. Just because something is called "personal information" by a definition does not mean it is protected solely because of such a definition.

Back to the matter at hand. Repeating, for the test under id. §9(1) to apply, personal information of a data subject must be protected under id. §6. The Court finds that §6(2)(g) imposes a limitation on Defendants privacy rights, and as such any test under §9(1) becomes non-applicable. The evidence was as such not obtained illegally, and the fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine does not apply.

 

[Talion77]

As the Court has granted the Defendant the option to file their opening statement despite missing the relevant deadline earlier, the same will be applied to Plaintiff's Opening Statement. Plaintiff may file their opening statement within 48 hours, however will not be punished by the Court should they choose not to.

@PlayerData

 

[OwnedBlock]

Your honour,

I would like to submit an amicus brief regarding the status and availability of Player_Data (as an outside observer of this proceeding), seeing as it's in the public interest not to waste the judiciary's time when there are so many cases filed on this docket.

 

[Talion77]

Your honour,

I would like to submit an amicus brief regarding the status and availability of Player_Data (as an outside observer of this proceeding), seeing as it's in the public interest not to waste the judiciary's time when there are so many cases filed on this docket.

Granted. Please file your brief within 48 hours. Reasonable extensions will be granted.

 

[Talion77]

As the Court has granted the Defendant the option to file their opening statement despite missing the relevant deadline earlier, the same will be applied to Plaintiff's Opening Statement. Plaintiff may file their opening statement within 48 hours, however will not be punished by the Court should they choose not to.

@PlayerData

Seeing that Plaintiff has chosen not to file their opening statement. Defendant shall, as a relevant deadline has not elapsed in the past, now file their opening statement within 48 hours.

 

[OwnedBlock]

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
AMICUS BRIEF

Your honour, I'll just keep this brief short and sweet.
From what is known to me, PlayerData had left the server with no intent to return due to struggling with an addiction to this server and its roleplay community as a whole.

In support of this, I'd like to notify everyone of the following facts:
- PlayerData's Discord account (currently pog7789) is, at the moment of filing at least, not within the DC server and their last message has been sent about a month ago (near midnight 5th of August 2026 GMT)
- a message from a party sympathetic to PlayerData (Hoogvlieger007) has been sent in #economics describing the fact that they had claimed to had left "cuz he was genuinely addicted [sic]" (linked here)
- upon my inquiry into the matter via Hoogvlieger007's PMs, Hoogvlieger007 had confirmed that their source was a Discord server that doesn't exist anymore, because it was "pretty much instantly nuked after being sold to some random [sic]"

While their recent activity that can be acquired with /about for about 12 minutes seems to contradict this, there are some concerns that the account might not have been legitimately accessed (even then, this slight spark of activity doesn't seem to support the proposition that they'd be willing to continue this filing, given their inactivity otherwise).

In the public interest of using judiciary's (and a public defender's) time in a productive way, I think it'd be reasonable to ask PlayerData if they'd like to continue this case, give them a reasonable deadline to respond and otherwise dismiss it for want of prosecution.

 

[Talion77]

@PlayerData in the interest of using the Court's time in an effective manner, notwithstanding any other pending deadlines, you have 72 hours to indicate your will to continue this case. Should you fail to do so, this case will be dismissed without prejudice.

@KeyChunky321