Lawsuit: Pending RiggoSoft V. Department of Commerce [2026] DCR 146

RiggoSoft

RiggoSoft

Citizen
Oakridge Resident
6th Anniversary Change Maker
RiggoSoft
RiggoSoft
Attorney
Joined
Aug 21, 2025
Messages
370

Case Filing


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

RiggoSoft
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Commerce
Defendant

COMPLAINT

The plaintiff complains against the defendant as follows

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM PLAINTIFF

On July 24th 2026, the plaintiff posted a corporation registration request to the Department of Commerce for the potential corporation that intends to be called "Psi Theta Inc." on August 1st the Department of Commerce forum account responded to the plaintiff linking the business corporation policy and asking them to make unneeded adjustments to their corporation document.

On July 30th 2026, the plaintiff posted a second corporation registration request to the Department of Commerce for the potential corporation that intends to be called "Alpha Chi Delta Fraternity Inc." on July 30th a compliance officer with the Department of Commerce (musclebound) responds to the plaintiff linking the business corporation policy and asking them to make unneeded adjustments to their corporation document.

The plaintiff had followed the Legal Entity Act Part IV Section I Subsection 2, which governs the required information of corporation formation insturments, exactly as specified by the law however the Department of Commerce has still yet to approve the corporations believing that the business corporation policy posted by them can require additional information for formation instruments.
Click to expand...

I. Parties
1. RiggoSoft
2. Department of Commerce

II. Facts
1. On July 24th 2026, the plaintiff submits the Psi Theta Inc corporation for registration with the Department of Commerce (P-01) as required by law with the attached formation document (P-02)
2. On July 30th 2026, the plaintiff submits the Alpha Chi Delta Fraternity Inc. corporation for registration with the Department of Commerce (P-03) as required by law with the attached formation document (P-04)
3. On July 30th 2026, Musclebound, a complaince officer for the Department of Commerce, responds underneath the Alpha Chi Delta Fraternity Inc. corporation request linking the business incorporation policy and telling the plaintiff to "fix" their formation instrument (P-03)
4. On July 30th 2026, the plaintiff responds to Musclebound informing them that the plaintiff is not required to abide by the business incorporation policy siting a previous corporation registration the plaintiff had with the Department of Commerce where the plaintiff had the same issues and the Department of Commerce eventually agreed with the plaintiff that abiding by the policy was not required for incorporation. (Message P-05, Previous Event P-06)
5. On July 30th 2026, Musclebound responds asking for information regarding one of the incorporators of Alpha Chi Delta and also what the DOJ & DOC attorneys concluded following the last incident mentioned in fact 4. (P-07)
6. On July 30th 2026, the defendant responds to Musclebound with the information he had requested. (P-08)
7. On August 1st 2026, the Department of Commerce responds to the Psi Theta Inc. corporation request linking the business incorporation policy and telling the plaintiff to ammend the formation document attached on the registration. (P-09)
8. On August 2nd 2026, the plaintiff opens a ticket with the Department of Justice asking for clarification of if the registration document had not correctly followed the Legal Entity Act as required by law. (P-10)
9. On August 4th 2026, Planke Fontaine (Planke32 on forums) responds to the plaintiff's ticket on behalf of the Department of Commerce, after being added to the ticket by a member of the DOJ, telling them to "Treat the optional requirements as optional, i shall have the policy updated to reflect this in due time" (P-10)
10. On August 4th 2026, the plaintiff responds with "So my corp is fine?" (P-10)
11. On August 4th 2026, Planke Fontaine (Planke32 on forums) responds to the plaintiff with "if the required provisions are there and compliant yes. I havnt thoroughly looked at it personally." (P-10)
12. On August 4th 2026, the plaintiff responds back with "Yeah they are they are what’s required in the LEA" (P-10)
13. On August 4th 2026, after an additional message by the plaintiff apologizing for the comotion broughten on by the plaintiff to the DOC and their employees, Planke Fontaine (Planke32 on forums) sends "allow muscle to see this and confirm hes seen it and then you can close" (P-10)
14. On August 4th 2026, Musclebound replies with "word" and the ticket is closed (P-10)
15. On August 7th 2026, the plaintiff creates a ticket with the Department of Commerce asking when their corporations will be approved (P-11)
16. On August 11th 2026, after discussion between the plaintiff and another employee of the Department of Commerce, fickogames responds to the plaintiff with "I read trough the document and it seems many vital parts are missing per DOC regulation,I will point out the DOC regulation is for your own sake, as the document you have put cannot be changed or altered legaly, it cannot be disolved, nor is there any legal liability protection." (P-11)
17. On August 11th 2026, the plaintiff responds with "Yeah I know DOC regulation isn’t law that was the whole point of the transcripts I attached so I don’t have to follow it I only have to follow the LEA which I did" (P-11)
18. As of August 13th 2026, neither corporation have been accepted (P-01 & P-03)

III. Claims for Relief

Count #1 Tortious Interference with Business Relations (Part X, Section 3 of the Redmont Civil Code Act)
As seen in facts 3,5,16, and 18 the defendant has intentionally and unlawfully interfiered with the plaintiff's prospective business dealings.

By unlawfully requesting the Alpha Chi Delta Fraternity Inc. formation document be ammended to abide by a non required business incorporation policy published by the defendant, the defandant has not permitted the plaintiff to conduct business on behalf of Alpha Chi Delta Fraternity Inc. which has not allowed the plaintiff or the plaintiff's prospective company to make money which has caused economic harm to both the plaintiff and their prespective company.

Count #2 Tortious Interference with Business Relations (Part X, Section 3 of the Redmont Civil Code Act)
As seen in facts 7,16, and 18 the defendant has intentionally and unlawfully interfiered with the plaintiff's prospective business dealings.

By unlawfully requesting the Psi Theta Inc. formation document be ammended to abide by a non required business incorporation policy published by the defendant, the defandant has not permitted the plaintiff to conduct business on behalf of Psi Theta Inc. which has not allowed the plaintiff or the plaintiff's prospective company to make money which has caused economic harm to both the plaintiff and their prespective company.

IV. Prayers for Relief
1. For count #1, the plaintiff asks for the court to officially reconginze and approve the Alpha Chi Delta Fratenity Incorporation
2. For count #1, the plaintiff asks for the court to award the plaintiff $35,000 in compensatory damages for the plaintiff and their corporations loss of earning capacity during the time they were not allowed to conduct business.
3. For count #1, in the event that both prayer 2 is denied the plaintiff asks the court to award the plaintiff $7,500 for nominal damages.
4. For count #2, the plaintiff asks for the court to officially reconginze and approve the Psi Theta Incorporation
5. For count #2, the plaintiff asks for the court to award the plaintiff $35,000 in compensatory damages for the plaintiff and their corporations loss of earning capacity during the time they were not allowed to conduct business.
6. For count #2, in the event that both prayer 2 is denied the plaintiff asks the court to award the plaintiff $7,500 for nominal damages.
7. For both counts #1 & #2, the plaintiff asks the court to order the Department of Commerce to restructure their business incorporation policy to reflect the legal requirements by the Legal Entity Act.
8. For both counts #1 & #2 the plaintiff asks the court to award the plaintiff 30% of all damages for legal fees.

Witnesses: Musclebound, Planke Fontaine, fickogames

Dated: This 13th day of August 2026

Evidence
Attached, Psi Theta Inc - Formation Document.pdf
Attached, Alpha Chi Delta Fraternity Inc - Formation Document.pdf
1786669963897.jpeg
1786669977570.jpeg
1786669987797.jpeg
1786670005940.jpeg
Attached, p-10.PDF
Attached, p-11.PDF

 

Attachments

Last edited:
According to Rule 3.3 of the Court Rules & Procedures the plaintiff would like to ammend the complaint in light of the Department of Commerce approving the corporations this afternnon, the ammendment will be as follows.

IV. Prayers for Relief
1. For count #1, the plaintiff asks for the court to officially reconginze and approve the Alpha Chi Delta Fratenity Incorporation to require the Department of Commerce to sign the company docket of Alpha Chi Delta Fraternity Inc.
2. For count #1, the plaintiff asks for the court to award the plaintiff $35,00020,000 in compensatory damages for the plaintiff and their corporations loss of earning capacity during the time they were not allowed to conduct business.
3. For count #1, in the event that prayer 2 is denied the plaintiff asks the court to award the plaintiff $7,500 for nominal damages.
4. For count #2, the plaintiff asks for the court to officially reconginze and approve the Psi Theta Incorporation to require the Department of Commerce to sign the company docket of Psi Theta Inc.
5. For count #2, the plaintiff asks for the court to award the plaintiff $35,00020,000 in compensatory damages for the plaintiff and their corporations loss of earning capacity during the time they were not allowed to conduct business.
6. For count #2, in the event that prayer 5 is denied the plaintiff asks the court to award the plaintiff $7,500 for nominal damages.
7. For both counts #1 & #2, the plaintiff asks the court to order the Department of Commerce to restructure their business incorporation policy to reflect the legal requirements by the Legal Entity Act.
8. For both counts #1 & #2all counts the plaintiff asks the court to award the plaintiff 30% of all damages for legal fees.
Click to expand...
 

Court Order


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


Plaintiff alleges x2 instances of Tortious Interference with Business Relations, yet the Complaint doesn't show how exactly that is acheieved.

The RCCA states the following:
2. Tortious Interference with Contract
Violation Type: Intentional
Remedy: No Fixed Remedy
A person commits a violation if the person:
(a) either
(i) knowingly induces another party to breach their contract with the plaintiff; or
(ii) intentionally interferes with the plaintiff’s existing contractual relationship; and
(b) the interference causes economic harm to the plaintiff.
This violation shall not occur where:
(c) the interference was through legitimate competition; or
(d) the interference was caused without knowledge of a contract between the parties; or
(e) the defendant was exercising a legal right.
Relevant Law:

It is not clear to the Court under which provision under 2(a) the Plaintiff relies for this allegation. He has 72 hours to clarify.


So ordered,
Justice Mug in the District Court


 
Muggy21 said:

Court Order


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


Plaintiff alleges x2 instances of Tortious Interference with Business Relations, yet the Complaint doesn't show how exactly that is acheieved.

The RCCA states the following:
2. Tortious Interference with Contract
Violation Type: Intentional
Remedy: No Fixed Remedy
A person commits a violation if the person:
(a) either
(i) knowingly induces another party to breach their contract with the plaintiff; or
(ii) intentionally interferes with the plaintiff’s existing contractual relationship; and
(b) the interference causes economic harm to the plaintiff.
This violation shall not occur where:
(c) the interference was through legitimate competition; or
(d) the interference was caused without knowledge of a contract between the parties; or
(e) the defendant was exercising a legal right.
Relevant Law:

It is not clear to the Court under which provision under 2(a) the Plaintiff relies for this allegation. He has 72 hours to clarify.


So ordered,
Justice Mug in the District Court


Click to expand...
Your honor we are not pursuing Tortious Interference with Contract which is what you linked we are pursuing
Tortious Interference with Business Relations.

Which is the following
Violation Type: Intentional
Remedy: No Fixed Remedy
A person commits a violation if the person:
(a) intentionally interferes with the plaintiff’s prospective business dealings or economic relationships; and
(b) the interference is accomplished through improper means or for improper purposes; and
(c) the interference causes economic harm to the plaintiff.
This violation shall not occur where:
(e) the interference was through legitimate competition; or
(f) the defendant was exercising a legal right.
Relevant Law:
Click to expand...
 
RiggoSoft said:
Your honor we are not pursuing Tortious Interference with Contract which is what you linked we are pursuing
Tortious Interference with Business Relations.

Which is the following
Click to expand...

The Court made an error, thanks for pointing that out. The OSC is voided.
 

Writ of Summons



@Matthew100x (or any Prosecutor) is commanded to appear in the District Court in the case of Riggosoft v. Department of Commerce [2026] DCR 146

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.

 

Answer to Complaint


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

Riggosoft
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Commerce (Commonwealth of Redmont)
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. Defendant neither AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that Plaintiff submitted for registration Psi Theta Corporation because it cannot see the thread the Plaintiff has linked, though AFFIRMS that a formation document was submitted on the Court thread.
2. Defendant neither AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that Plaintiff submitted for registration Alpha Chi Delta Fraternity Inc. because it cannot see the thread the Plaintiff has linked, though AFFIRMS that a formation document was submitted on the Court thread.
3. Defendant neither AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that Musclebound responded because it cannot see the thread Plaintiff has linked.
4. Defendant neither AFFIRMS NOR DENIES this fact because it cannot see the threat that the Plaintiff has linked. However, Defendant DENIES that any choice made by the DOC in a prior application means that precedent is the standard going forward.
5. Defendant DENIES that Musclebound asked for information regarding incorporators of Alpha Chi Delta UNLESS Plaintiff explains the link between “Alexandrian Riggo Family Wealth Fund” and Alpha Chi Delta.
6. Defendant neither AFFIRMS NOR DENIES this fact, NOTING that it cannot read the evidence given due to the poor quality of the screenshot.
7. Defendant AFFIRMS that it told Plaintiff to make amendments based on their business incorporation policy.
8. Defendant AFFIRMS that the Plaintiff opened a ticket with the DOJ and inquired about the business registration document not correctly following LEA.
9. Defendant AFFIRMS Planke Fontaine made this statement.
10. Defendant AFFIRMS Plaintiff made this statement.
11. Defendant AFFIRMS that Planke responded with “if the required provisions are there and compliant yes. I havnt thoroughly looked at it personally.”
12. Defendant AFFIRMS Plaintiff made this statement.
13. Defendant AFFIRMS Planke Fontaine made this statement.
14. Defendant AFFIRMS Musclebound responded with “word” and closed the ticket.
15. Defendant AFFIRMS Plaintiff made a ticket with the DOC asking when their corporations will be approved.
16. Defendant AFFIRMS that fickogames made the following statement: “I read trough the document and it seems many vital parts are missing per DOC regulation,I will point out the DOC regulation is for your own sake, as the document you have put cannot be changed or altered legaly, it cannot be disolved, nor is there any legal liability protection.”
17. Defendant AFFIRMS that Plaintiff made the following statement: “Yeah I know DOC regulation isn’t law that was the whole point of the transcripts I attached so I don’t have to follow it I only have to follow the LEA which I did.”
18. Defendant can neither AFFIRM NOR DENY this statement because it cannot check the registration threads.

II. DEFENCES

1. Lawful Exercise of Regulatory Authority

Defendant acted pursuant to authority expressly delegated to the Department of Commerce under the Legal Entity Act, including authority concerning company-docket procedures, filings, and filing formats (see Part III, § 1(7); Part VII, § 3(1)(a), § 3(1)(c), Act of Congress - Legal Entity Act).

The Supreme Court has held that executive departments may promulgate regulations within authority delegated by Congress and that courts should afford reasonable deference to agencies acting within their lawful bounds (see Appeal: Accepted - [2025] FCR 78 - Appeal).

Accordingly, Plaintiff's position that DOC regulations may be disregarded merely because a requirement is not expressly repeated within the LEA is incorrect because a regulation is a requirement.

2. Exercise of a Legal Right

Tortious Interference with Business Relations does not occur where the Defendant was exercising a legal right (see Part X, § 3(f), Act of Congress - Redmont Civil Code Act).

Defendant's review of incorporation filings, requests for amendments or additional information, and enforcement of lawful DOC regulations constituted the exercise of statutory and regulatory authority delegated to the Department.

3. Failure to Establish Improper Means or Purpose

Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged that Defendant acted through improper means or for an improper purpose as required for Tortious Interference with Business Relations (see Part X, § 3(b), Act of Congress - Redmont Civil Code Act).

The conduct alleged in the Complaint describes regulatory review and enforcement by DOC officials rather than conduct intended to unlawfully interfere with Plaintiff's business activities.

4. Failure to Establish Prospective Business Dealings or Economic Harm

Plaintiff has not identified any specific prospective contract, transaction, customer, or economic relationship with which Defendant allegedly interfered, nor has Plaintiff established actual economic harm caused by Defendant's conduct (see Part X, § 3(a), § 3(c), Act of Congress - Redmont Civil Code Act).

General assertions that the proposed corporations could have generated income are insufficient to establish the elements or amount of Plaintiff's claimed damages.

5. Prior DOC Decisions Do Not Establish Binding Precedent

Plaintiff's reliance upon DOC treatment of previous registration applications does not establish that the Department was legally required to treat later applications identically.

Administrative decisions in prior registration matters do not constitute binding judicial precedent, and DOC retains authority to administer and enforce regulations within its statutory delegation (see Appeal: Accepted - [2025] FCR 78 - Appeal).

6. Plaintiff Is Not Entitled to Judicial Restructuring of DOC Policy

Plaintiff has not established a lawful basis for an order requiring the Court to restructure the DOC's Business Incorporation Policy.

The Supreme Court has held that courts should not substitute their own policy judgment for that of an executive agency where the agency acts within the authority delegated to it by Congress (see Appeal: Accepted - [2025] FCR 78 - Appeal).

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 31st day of August 2026.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top