Vennefly
Citizen
Congressional Staff
Justice Department
Construction & Transport Department
Education Department
Supporter
Aventura Resident
Change Maker
Vennefly
Draftsman
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2025
- Messages
- 312
- Thread Author
- #1
Case Filing
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
Raz0Baz0 (represented by MZLD)
Plaintiff
v.
vishy1x
Defendant
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
I. PARTIES
1. Raz0Baz0 (Plaintiff)
2. vishy1x (Defendant)
II. FACTS
- On 28 October 2025 at 23:56 (GMT+1), Plaintiff posted an Auction selling a Recreation of Edvard Munch's "The Scream" to the #marketplace channel in the DemocracyCraft Discord (P-001).
- The Auction was to run for 48 hours from the moment of posting (P-001).
- On 29 October 2025 at 21:51 (GMT+1), Defendant placed a bid of R$14,000 (P-002).
- No further bids were received, and on 30 October at 23:56 (GMT+1) the Auction concluded, with the Defendant having the highest bid, winning the Auction (P-002).
- On 1 November 2025 from 23:25 (GMT+1) onwards, Plaintiff's counsel and Defendant were in touch through Discord after Defendant had let Plaintiff know he wanted to pay through Volt, trying to arrange payment (P-003).
- During this conversation, Defendant sent Plaintiff's counsel a screenshot showing a withdrawal from Volt bank by him for an amount of R40,000, promising to pay Plaintiff after this withdrawal processes (P-003).
- On 1 November 2025, Defendant held an in-game balance of R$1,100 (P-004).
- On 10 November 2025, Plaintiff's counsel, having not yet received payment, reminded Defendant of their arrangement, but received no response (P-005).
- On 15 November 2025, Defendant still holds an in-game balance of R1,100 (P-006).
- As of the filing of this suit, no payment has been received from Defendant.
1. Breach of Contract
Through bidding on Plaintiff's auction and winning the auction, a Contract was formed between Plaintiff and Defendant. According to Section 4(2) of the Contracts Act, the formation of a Contract requires:
- An Offer, in this case the Defendant offered R$14,000 in exchange for Plaintiff's painting by posting the message reading "14k" to the Auction thread (P-002).
- Acceptance, the Plaintiff accepted Defendant's offer by announcing him as the winner of the Auction (P-002).
- Consideration, it is clear that there is an exchange of value between parties, consisting of the exchange of a painting for money.
- Intent, the actions of both parties in the auction thread (P-001 and P-002) clearly demonstrate the intent of both parties to come to an exchange of the painting for an amount of R$14,000. In the conversation between Plaintiff's counsel and Defendant, Defendant further confirms this (P-003).
- Capacity, each Party had the Capacity to enter into such a Contract.
2. Outrageous Conduct
Early on after winning the Auction, Plaintiff's counsel and Defendant were in touch to discuss the payment for this auction. During this conversation, Defendant showed Plaintiff's counsel a screenshot showing a withdrawal made by Defendant from Volt Bank, Inc., promising payment after this had been processed (P-003). Not only did Defendant then not keep his promise again: Plaintiff also believes that the screenshot Defendant showed had been falsified. This suspicion is supported by the fact that, between 1 November 2025 and 15 November 2025, Defendant's balance appears to be unchanged (P-004 and P-006). Plaintiff intends to call Omegabiebel, the CEO of Volt Bank as a witness in order to get to the bottom of this.
Even after further reminder by Plaintiff's counsel (P-005), Defendant has not paid. Instead, Defendant chose to prolong the deception, remaining silent. Such conduct goes far beyond mere breach of contract or ordinary neglect. Defendant demonstrated a willingness to mislead, to fabricate evidence, and to obstruct the ordinary and fair dealings expected within this community. The intentional presentation of a falsified financial document, if confirmed, would not simply be dishonest. It would be a calculated act designed to lull Plaintiff into inaction and to evade accountability. Such a deliberate fabrication, made to counsel during what was supposed to be a routine post-auction settlement, is "completely indecent, totally atrocious, and fully intolerable in a civilized community," as is the standard for Outrageous Conduct defined in Lightiago v. FuriousPaladin [2023] SCR 20. It shows a disregard not only for the Plaintiff's rights, but also for the integrity of the economic system upon which all participants in this server rely.
Furthermore, Defendant’s continued refusal to rectify the situation, even after being given multiple opportunities and reminders, reflects a sustained pattern of intentional misconduct. At no point did Defendant attempt to correct the alleged misrepresentation, communicate any legitimate obstacle to payment, or demonstrate good-faith effort to resolve the matter. Instead, Defendant persisted in withholding payment, forcing Plaintiff to resort to litigation simply to secure what he was rightfully owed. Taken together, Defendant’s actions constitute a level of deception, manipulation, and disregard for community norms that transcends ordinary wrongdoing. Plaintiff therefore submits that the Defendant’s conduct qualifies as outrageous under the governing legal standard. Thus, pursuant to Section 5(1)(a) of the Legal Damages Act, punitive damages are warranted to deter such behaviour and to reaffirm the expectation of honesty and fair dealing within this community.
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Performance of Defendant's obligations under the Contract, consisting of payment of an amount of R$14,000 to Plaintiff.
2. Either:
a. Punitive Damages in the amount of R$28,000 for Defendant's Outrageous Conduct, pursuant to Section 5 of the Legal Damages Act, or alternatively—
b. Nominal Damages in the amount of R$7,500, pursuant to Section 6 of the Legal Damages Act, whichever results in higher total damages being awarded.
3. Legal fees amounting to 30% of the Case Value, pursuant to Section 9 of the Legal Damages Act.
4. A Court Order ordering the Department of Homeland Security to seize and liquidate any Property owned by Defendant up to the amount awarded by this Court in order to execute the Court's Verdict. This includes, in this order:
a. Cash held in balance;
b. Plots;
c. The contents of Defendant's Inventory, Enderchest and Supporter Chest;
d. Cash held in any Financial Institution within Redmont.
V. EVIDENCE
Message was censored due to attorney-client privilege, but the relevant evidence and timestamp is clearly visible.
VI. WITNESSES
1. OmegaBiebel, CEO of Volt Bank, Inc.
VII. DECLARATION AND SIGNATURE
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 16th day of November 2025.
