Lawsuit: Pending RiggoSoft V. Dimitre977 [2026] DCR 25

[RiggoSoft]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

RiggoSoft
Plaintiff

v.

dimitre977
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiffs complains against the Defendant as follows:

Written Statement

The defendant (dimite977) has falsely alleged that the plaintiff (RiggoSoft) had mislead the defendant into entering into an employment contract under false pretenses of the company's (Oakridge Community Bank) situation.

I. Parties
1. Oakridge Community Bank (The bank, the company the defendant was employed by under P-01)
2. dimitre977 (Defendant)
3. RiggoSoft (Plaintiff, Chief Executive Officer prior to defendant's appointment, referred to as successor in P-01)
4. DiehardDave (Potential customer of the Plaintiff)

II. Facts

All dates are formatted mm/dd/yyyy and times are formatted 12:00 in the Eastern Standard Time time zone
1. On 12/22/2025 at 1:34 PM the defendant contacts the plaintiff regarding a job listing posted by the plaintiff regarding the role of Chief Executive Officer of Oakridge Community Bank. (P-01)
2. The defendant and the plaintiff continue to talk about the job the defendant is inquiring for, the requirements and potential for compensation. (P-01)
3. On 12/22/2025 at 7:22 PM the defendant asks "Ok is the bank in any financial trouble and do I have to take care of the government aspect?" (P-01)
4. On 12/22/2025 at 7:31 PM the plaintiff responds "Yes you have to take care of the government aspect" and then informs the defendant that "No finacial" (referring to finacial issues) (P-01)
5. The defendant and the plaintiff keep discussing the conditions of the job and the specifics of the agreement. However do not talk about the reports of the bank and the defendant does not ask for the reports. (P-01)
6. On 12/23/2025 at 2:12 PM the plaintiff sends the defendant a file titled "OCB CEO Employment(2).pdf" which contains the employment agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant. (P-01)
7. On 12/23/2025 at 2:29 PM the defendant sends back the employment agreement with their signature (P-01)
8. On 12/23/2025 at 2:34 PM RiggoSoft on behalf of Oakridge Community Bank and himself as the successor Chief Executive Officer sign the agreement and send it back to the defendant. (P-01)
9. RiggoSoft begins sending all documents required by the defendant as specified within the agreement (P-01)
10. On 12/23/2025 at 3:05 PM RiggoSoft transfer the in game DB to the defendant and completes their contractual obligations. (P-01)
12. On 12/27/2025 at 8:23 PM the defendant opens a ticket with Department of Commerce (P-02)
13. On 12/28/2025 at 12:37 AM the defendant is informed by flooristired on behalf of the Department of Commerce that there were compliance issues. (P-02)
14. On 12/28/2025 at 4:11 AM the defendant says in the ticket with the Department of Commerce "I got lied to bro said the company had no legal issues" (P-02)
15. On 12/28/2025 at 4:14 AM the defendant says in the same ticket with the Department of Commerce "Sorry not legal problems[...] I asked them to be clear with all the issues and never heard about this otherwise I wouldn't have bought it" (For context and clarity reasons the defendant had never purchased any part of the bank from RiggoSoft nor was he given any ownership with his employment agreement) (P-02)
16 . On 12/28/2025 at 4:17 AM flooristired on behalf of the DOC responds in the ticket with "its probably because they didn't think that their reporting of their assets and liabilities, and the problems that were identified by the DOC with their statements were issues"
(P-02)
17. On 1/20/2026 at 11:35 AM DiehardDave a potential customer of the plaintiff asks regarding if they may open a company account with the plaintiff for the company The Royal Institute (P-03)
18. The defendant responds at 11:35 AM with "No cannot" (P-03)
19. The potential customer asks "why?" at 11:35 AM (P-03)
20. The defendant responds at 11:40 AM with "We aren't taking any new accounts" in a separate message they say "I was lied to when I first joined as the CEO" (P-03)
21. The potential customer asks "[...] when you'd be open to new accounts" at 11:44 AM (P-03)
22. The defendant responds with "Wont' be" at 11:45 AM (P-03)
23. The potential customer asks "indefinitely?" at 11:45 AM (P-03)
24. The defendant closes the ticket at 11:46 AM (P-03)
25. On 1/20/2026 at 11:52 AM RiggoSoft, acting on behalf of the board of directors of Oakridge Community Bank posts a motion to remove the defendant from the position of Chief Executive Officer. As the sole director of the board of directors the motion passes and the defendant is removed from the position. (P-04)
26. On 1/20/2026 at 11:52 AM RiggoSoft, acting on behalf of the board of directors of Oakridge Community Bank, informs the defendant that they are relieved of their duties as Chief Executive Officer. (P-01)
27. On 1/20/2026 at 11:52 AM the defendant responds in the discord thread where the motion to remove happened and sends "Nice", and sends "You lied to me I just want you to acknowledge you did and I’ll move on with my day" (P-04)


III. Claims for Relief

Due to the time of the actions these charges are brought through the No More Defamation Act

Count #1 Slander

(a) A false statement, usually made through either discord or in-game messages, which defames another person’s reputation, business, profession, or organization.

The defendant had told individuals multiple times that the plaintiff (RiggoSoft) had lied to them about the bank's condition and offers this as an excuse for them neglecting their duties. The defendant tells individuals this as it is a proven fact although the plaintiff (RiggoSoft) had not lied to them.

Specifically the defendant had told a potential customer of the bank DiehardDave that RiggoSoft had lied to them as established in fact #20. The defendant falsely told the DOC the plaintiff had lied to them as well established in fact #14 The defendant had also alleged this in a discord channel open to all members of the board of directors of the bank in fact #27.

Count #2 Defamation

(a) Defamation is a false statement and/or communication that injures a third party's reputation. The tort of defamation includes both libel and slander.

The defendant had told individuals such as potential clients of a business that the plaintiff had a large ownership in and worked for that they had lied to them which resulted in the plaintiff's reputation being harmed (See fact #20).

The defendant had also told individuals apart of the Department of Commerce - whom are collegaues of the plaintiff, and also have extreme power over the plaintiff as the plaintiff owns multiple business that the plaintiff- had lied to them which had resulted in the plaintiff's reputation being harmed. (See fact #14)

IV. Prayer for Relief

1. $50,000 in Punitive Damages for the defendants slander of the plaintiff as established by count #1.
2. $20,000 in Compensatory Damages for the defendants loss of reputation with customers and the Department of Commerce as established in count #2.
3. 30% of all damages awarded as Legal Fees. Paid to RiggoSoft.
4. A written apology from the defendant addressed to the plaintiff for the defendant's slander admitting it was wrong and harmful.

V. Evidence

Spoiler: P-01

Attached, dim_06_page_1[1].html.pdf

Spoiler: P-02

Spoiler: P-03

Attached, transcript-closed-0024.html.pdf

Spoiler: P-04

Will be attached after post is sent

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 23 day of Feburary 2026

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Writ of Summons

@dimitre977 , is required to appear before the District Court in the case of RiggoSoft V. Dimitre977 [2026] DCR 25

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.

 

[Franciscus]

Writ of Summons

@dimitre977 , is required to appear before the District Court in the case of RiggoSoft V. Dimitre977 [2026] DCR 25

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.

Your Honor,

I am present on behalf of the Defendant.

Spoiler: Evidence of consent to represent

See also:

Lawsuit: Dismissed Post in thread 'Oakridge Community Bank & RiggoSoft v. dimitre977 [2026] FCR 9'

Feb 15, 2026

Any who, you're here now.

You have 48 Hours to present an Answer.

Your Honor,

I will be representing the defendant.

Spoiler: Evidence of consent to represent

• Franciscus

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Your Honor,

I am present on behalf of the Defendant.

Spoiler: Evidence of consent to represent

View attachment 75356

See also:

Lawsuit: Dismissed Post in thread 'Oakridge Community Bank & RiggoSoft v. dimitre977 [2026] FCR 9'

Feb 15, 2026

Any who, you're here now.

You have 48 Hours to present an Answer.

Your Honor,

I will be representing the defendant.

Spoiler: Evidence of consent to represent

• Franciscus

Lovely.

Defense is afforded 72 hours to file an answer to complaint.

Should an extension be necessary, please ask using appropriate format.

 

[Franciscus]

Lovely.

Defense is afforded 72 hours to file an answer to complaint.

Should an extension be necessary, please ask using appropriate format.

Your Honor,

I am presently working with the DoC to get some materials necessary for the full defense of this case which we wish to present in an answer and counterclaim. May the Defense have an additional 12 hours extension?

 

[Franciscus]

Answer to Complaint

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

RiggoSoft,
Plaintiff,

v.

dimitre977,
Defendant.​

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT​

1. AFFIRMS that on or about 12/22/2025 Defendant contacted Plaintiff regarding a CEO job listing for Oakridge Community Bank (“OCB”).
2. AFFIRMS generally that Defendant and Plaintiff discussed the CEO role, requirements, and compensation.
3. AFFIRMS that Defendant asked words substantially similar to: “Ok is the bank in any financial trouble and do I have to take care of the government aspect?”
4. AFFIRMS that Plaintiff responded with words substantially similar to: “Yes you have to take care of the government aspect” and that the Plaintiff said “No financial" in a manner that intended to communicate and did communicate that OCB was not in financial trouble.
5. DENIES that the Plaintiff and Defendant “do not talk about the reports of the bank” and “the defendant does not ask for the reports”, NOTING that the Defendant asked about “ a seperate [sic] sheet for the balances of depositers [sic]” and that Plaintiff responded that “we dont [sic] keep exact balances of depositors” (Exhibit P-001).
6. AFFIRMS that Plaintiff sent a file titled substantially similar to “OCB CEO Employment(2).pdf” and that Defendant received an employment agreement.
7. AFFIRMS that Defendant returned the agreement with Defendant’s signature.
8. AFFIRMS that Plaintiff returned the agreement with Plaintiff’s signature(s), including signatures purporting to be on behalf of OCB and Plaintiff personally.
9. AFFIRMS that Plaintiff provided Defendant with certain materials and access relevant to OCB. DENIES any allegation or characterization that Plaintiff fully “completed their contractual obligations” or that all required materials were provided in full compliance with all terms, to the extent such allegation calls for a legal conclusion or asserts facts not fully set out in the Complaint.
10. NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that Plaintiff provided Defendant with /db access to OCB. DENIES that Plaintiff “completed their contractual obligations” towards Defendant.
11. AFFIRMS that Defendant opened a Department of Commerce ticket on or about 12/27/2025. (Note: Plaintiff’s factual allegations skip a number from 10 to 12 here; all following numbers will be out-of-sync)
12. AFFIRMS that Defendant was informed by flooristired on behalf of the Department of Commerce that there were compliance issues.
13. DENIES that Defendant stated “I got lied to bro said the company had no legal issues”, and DENIES that such statement would have (a) constituted a knowingly false statement of fact about Plaintiff, (b) been made with malice, or (c) been defamation or slander.
14. AFFIRMS that Defendant later clarified words substantially similar to: “Sorry not legal problems[…] I asked them to be clear with all the issues and never heard about this otherwise I wouldn’t have bought it.” Defendant NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES purchase any ownership in OCB from Plaintiff, and Defendant denies any defamatory meaning attributed to Defendant’s clarification.
15. AFFIRMS that DoC representative flooristired stated “its probably because they didn't think that their reporting of their assets and liabilities, and the problems that were identified by the DOC with their statements were issues”
16. AFFIRMS that on or about 1/20/2026 a potential customer contacted OCB about opening an account. NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that “The Royal Institute” is a company and DENIES that The Royal Institute is a company registered with the Department of Commerce. DENIES that the potential customer explicitly asked about a “company account”.
17. AFFIRMS the quoted passages that Defendant responded in substance that OCB was not taking new accounts, but DENIES that this statement identifies Plaintiff, asserts a provably false statement of fact about Plaintiff, or constitutes actionable defamation/slander (Factual Allegations 18-21).
18. AFFIRMS that the customer asked follow-up questions and that the ticket was later closed (Factual Allegations 21-24).
19. AFFIRMS that on or about 1/20/2026 Plaintiff posted a motion/statement removing Defendant as CEO and that Plaintiff claimed the vote passed. Defendant DENIES any allegation that this fact supports Plaintiff’s defamation claims. Defendant DENIES that this motion and vote were valid under Oakridge Community Bank’s Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws as well as the Legal Entity Act. (Factual Allegations 25-26)
20. AFFIRMS that Defendant responded in the removal thread with “Nice” and also sent words substantially similar to: “You lied to me I just want you to acknowledge you did and I’ll move on with my day.” DENIES that this constitutes actionable defamation/slander for, among other reasons, lack of the required elements (including but not limited to publication to a third party and/or defamatory false statement of fact). (Factual Allegation 27)
21. Except as hereinbefore expressly affirmed or expressly neither affirmed nor denied, each and every other factual allegation and claim for relief is DENIED as if set out herein.

II. DEFENSES​

Defendant asserts these defenses in the alternative and reserves the right to amend/add defenses as facts and discovery develop.

1. Failure to State a Claim. The Complaint fails to plead facts sufficient to establish every element of slander or defamation, including (at minimum) a clear defamatory statement of fact about Plaintiff, publication, falsity, and legally cognizable damages.
2. Unavailable Cause of Action. Plaintiff pleads the “No More Defamation Act” as the basis for the claims “due to the time of the actions.” Plaintiff’s reliance on that Act may be improper to the extent it was repealed by the Redmont Civil Code Amendments Act (which is improperly included by the Clerk of Congress in the thread on the Redmont Civil Code Act despite not actually amending that bill) prior to the onset of this case. Under Redmont Civil Code Act Part II, Section 3(2), “Any civil violation purportedly created by another Act of Congress shall be null and void unless incorporated as an amendment to this Code”. Plaintiff must demonstrate why this claim may proceed in light of the language in the RCCA that may nullify violations created by other Acts of Congress.
3. Opinion / Hyperbole / Non‑Actionable Statement. The alleged statements (e.g., “I got lied to bro,” “I was lied to,” “You lied to me”) may be, in context, expressions of opinion, personal belief, rhetorical hyperbole, or conclusions rather than specific, verifiable statements of fact.
4. No Identification of Plaintiff. The Claim for Relief alleging slander asserts that Defendant told a potential customer that “RiggoSoft had lied” (citing Fact #20), but Fact #20 as pleaded alleges only that Defendant stated: “I was lied to when I first joined as the CEO.” That statement does not identify Plaintiff and is not pleaded as a specific accusation against Plaintiff, nor does the evidence in-case indicate that Defendant told Plaintiff's name to the potential client.
5. Privilege / Qualified Privilege. Statements made in a good‑faith attempt to communicate with or seek guidance from the Department of Commerce about compliance issues are privileged or conditionally privileged as communications to an oversight authority, defeating liability absent proof of malice.
6. Substantial Truth / Justification. To the extent Defendant’s statements are construed as factual, they were substantially true or reasonably grounded in information then available to Defendant (including the existence of compliance issues communicated by the Department of Commerce).
7. Lack of Damages; Speculative Damages. Plaintiff has not pleaded (and cannot prove) non‑speculative damages caused by Defendant’s statements. Plaintiff’s claimed amounts appear arbitrary and unsupported by pleaded facts.
8. Punitive Damages not Warranted. Defendant did not act with the requisite malice/outrageousness to justify punitive damages, and any punitive damages request is excessive, unsupported, and contrary to governing damages principles.
9. Unclean Hands / Equitable Bar (as to apology and equitable relief). Plaintiff seeks equitable-type relief (a compelled written apology) while publicly disclosing sensitive and/or confidential materials in connection with this dispute. Equity should not reward unclean hands.

III. Witness List​

1. ElysiaCrynn
2. FloorIsTired
3. Sagamo2008
4. Riggosoft

IV. Attestation​

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 1 day of March 2026

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
COUNTERCLAIM

dimitre977,
Counter-Plaintiff,

v.

RiggoSoft,
Counter-Defendant.​

I. Parties​

1. dimitre977 (Counter-Plaintiff)
2. RiggoSoft (Counter-Defendant)

II. Facts​

1. On or about December 23, 2025, Counter-Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant entered into an “Oakridge Community Bank Chief Executive Officer Employment Agreement” (“Employment Agreement”; see Exhibit CP-001).
2. The agreement was signed by Counter-Plaintiff as “Successor,” and by Counter-Defendant as “Chairman of the Board” on behalf of Oakridge Community Bank and also as the “Incumbent.”
3. Article V of the Employment Agreement is an express non‑disclosure provision. It states, in substance, that:
   1. All parties agree that all contents in this agreement are confidential and that they will not speak of any of the contents to anyone until the date January 1st 2027; and
   2. any sensitive materials relating to the bank including, but not limited to: depositor agreements, loans, delinquency notices, certificates of ownership, shareholder agreements, or technological data may not be disclosed to any other party until January 1st 2027; and
   3. If any party releases information regarding the contents of the agreement, the other non offending parties may take legal action.
4. On or about February 12, 2026, Counter-Defendant filed a lawsuit against Dimitre977 that included the full text of the employment agreement (Exhibit CP-001: [2026] FCR 9, Post No.2, Exhibit P-02)
5. In doing so, Counter-Defendant released the content of the employment agreement into the public eye.
6. Counter-Defendant voluntraily dismissed himself from that
7. On or about February 23, 2026, Counter-Defendant filed the present lawsuit publicly on the DemocracyCraft forums, including factual allegations describing the Employment Agreement and attaching exhibits that contain the Employment Agreement and/or sensitive materials relating to OCB.
8. Those public disclosures occurred before January 1, 2027.
9. Counter-Defendant’s public disclosures of confidential agreement contents and/or sensitive bank materials constitute a breach of Article V of the Employment Agreement.
10. Counter-Defendant’s disclosures also create ongoing risk of further dissemination and harm, including but not limited to the spread of sensitive bank operational data, and unnecessary escalation of reputational disputes.
11. Counter-Defendant did not provide Counter-Plaintiff with financial statements or other relevant documentation regarding the financial status of OCB prior to Counter-Plaintiff's signing of the Employment Agreement.
12. Oakridge Community Bank had accounting issues at the time that Counter-Plaintiff signed the employment agreement.
13. By failing to disclose relevant information, Counter-Defendant withheld information from the Counter-Plaintiff that materially affected the Counter-Plaintiff's decision to sign the Employment Agreement.
14. Counter-Defendant Failed to file all required information on the company docket before the transition to Counter-Plaintiff was completed.
15. Counter-Defendant materially breached contract in failing to perform all contractual obligations in the 48 hours after the Employment Agreement's signing.

III. Claim for Relief​

This Counterclaim is brought pursuant to Part IV of the Redmont Civil Code Act.

III.I Breach of Contract​

Under the Redmont Civil Code Act Part VI, Section 1, "Breach of Contract" is a tort of strict liability that occurs when a party "fails to perform obligations under a valid and enforceable contract without lawful excuse".

The Employment Agreement would appear to have been a valid contract between Counter-Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant (and OCB), supported by consideration and signed by the parties. Counter-Defendant breached the Employment Agreement by disclosing confidential contents of the agreement and/or sensitive bank materials before January 1, 2027, contrary to Article V.

Counter-Plaintiff has suffered harm as a result of Counter-Defendant’s breach, including loss of confidentiality, exposure of private communications, and the risk of further dissemination. At minimum, Counter-Plaintiff is entitled to nominal damages and equitable relief.

III.II Fraud​

Under Criminal Code Act Part VII, Section 7, Fraud occurs when a person "knowingly or recklessly misrepresents or omits a material fact to another, causing the other party to rely on that misrepresentation, resulting in actual, quantifiable harm". Counter-Plaintiff alleges that Counter-Defendant omitted and/or misrepresented the financial status of Oakridge Community Bank prior to inducing Counter-Plaintiff to sign the Employment Agreement, and subsequently made false representations that all contractual obligations from Counter-Defendant to Counter-Plaintiff have been fulfilled. This has caused Counter-Plaintiff harm, both in forcing Counter-Plaintiff to spend time and energy seeking defense of lawsuits and in misusing Counter-Plaintiff's time while Counter-Plaintiff was CEO.

Evidence in support of this claim will be further developed throughout discovery.

IV. Prayer for Relief​

1. Declaratory Judgement. Counter-Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief that Counter-Defendant breached Article V of the Employment Agreement;
2. Injunctive / equitable relief. Plaintiff prays that this Court order Counter-Defendant to:
   1. Remove, redact, or replace with minimally necessary excerpts any publicly posted confidential agreement contents and/or any sensitive bank materials, and
   2. Refrain from any further public disclosure of the agreement contents and sensitive bank materials prior to January 1, 2027 (except as strictly required for Court process and only to the minimum extent necessary);
3. Nominal damages. Counter-Plaintiff seeks nominal damages in the amont of $7,500 to acknowledge Counter-Defendants harm caused to Counter-Plaintiff.
4. Legal fees. Counter-Plaintiff seeks maximum legal fees permitted under the Redmont Civil Code Act.
5. Other Relief. Counter-Plaintiff seeks any other equitable or monetary relief that this Court may deem just and proper.

V. Evidence​

Spoiler: Exhibit CP-001

[2026] FCR 9, incorporated by reference including attachments to posts in that case. See: Lawsuit: Dismissed - Oakridge Community Bank & RiggoSoft v. dimitre977 [2026] FCR 9

VI. Witness List​

1. ElysiaCrynn
2. FloorIsTired
3. Sagamo2008
4. Riggosoft
5. Dimitre977
6. Sir_Dogeington

VII. Attestation​

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 1 day of March 2026

 

[RiggoSoft]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS (Section 3.2)
Lack of Jurisdiction

The counter-defendant brings this motion to court

As established by the Criminal Code Act

(3) Indictable Offence means an offence that must be prosecuted through formal legal proceedings, where the accused is entitled to a fair trial and the opportunity to contest the charges before a judicial officer, and are prosecuted by the Department of Justice.

The counter-plaintiff's claim for relief based off of fraud cannot be given as no one has tried the counter-defendant for fraud which is an indictable offence (See MD-01), and the counter-plaintiff is not in a position where they can bring charges through the Criminal Code Act. As such we humbly ask that this claim is to be dismissed because the plaintiff lacks the jurisdiction to do so.

Spoiler: MD-01

Additionally your honor I will be posting a motion to dismiss on the other charge as well later tonight

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS (Section 3.2)
Lack of Jurisdiction

The counter-defendant brings this motion to court

As established by the Criminal Code Act



The counter-plaintiff's claim for relief based off of fraud cannot be given as no one has tried the counter-defendant for fraud which is an indictable offence (See MD-01), and the counter-plaintiff is not in a position where they can bring charges through the Criminal Code Act. As such we humbly ask that this claim is to be dismissed because the plaintiff lacks the jurisdiction to do so.

Spoiler: MD-01

View attachment 75794

Additionally your honor I will be posting a motion to dismiss on the other charge as well later tonight

Your Honor,

The Counter-Plaintiff respectfully requests to respond to this Motion to Dismiss.

 

[RiggoSoft]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS (Section 3.1)
Frivolous Claims

As established by the Whistleblowers Act

(1) A whistleblower is an entity or individual that presents information to another individual or organization about an entity or individual who is involved with any activity that is deemed illegal, illicit, unsafe, or a waste, fraud, or abuse of taxpayer funds.

4) It is illegal for the Government to punish whistle blowers.

The counter-plaintiff claims that the counter-defendant had committed Breach of Contract under the RCCA, however by the counter-defendant and Oakridge Community Bank bringing a case against the counter-plaintiff and "breaking" the non-disclosure agreement in the Federal Court, the counter-defendant is protected under the Whistleblowers Act as they were presenting information regarding the counter-plaintiff's illegal actions of Breach of Contract with the counter-defendant and Oakridge Community Bank.

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS (Section 3.1)
Frivolous Claims

As established by the Whistleblowers Act




The counter-plaintiff claims that the counter-defendant had committed Breach of Contract under the RCCA, however by the counter-defendant and Oakridge Community Bank bringing a case against the counter-plaintiff and "breaking" the non-disclosure agreement in the Federal Court, the counter-defendant is protected under the Whistleblowers Act as they were presenting information regarding the counter-plaintiff's illegal actions of Breach of Contract with the counter-defendant and Oakridge Community Bank.

Your Honor,

We respectfully seek to respond to this motion to dismiss.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Counter Plaintiff is permitted to respond to both motions. Please do so within the next 24 hours.

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS (Section 3.2)
Lack of Jurisdiction

The counter-defendant brings this motion to court

As established by the Criminal Code Act



The counter-plaintiff's claim for relief based off of fraud cannot be given as no one has tried the counter-defendant for fraud which is an indictable offence (See MD-01), and the counter-plaintiff is not in a position where they can bring charges through the Criminal Code Act. As such we humbly ask that this claim is to be dismissed because the plaintiff lacks the jurisdiction to do so.

Spoiler: MD-01

View attachment 75794

Additionally your honor I will be posting a motion to dismiss on the other charge as well later tonight

Response

Your Honor,

Counter-Defendant's motion is deficient for several reasons and we respectfully ask that their motion for dismissal be denied:

1. The motion is invalid on procedural grounds. Under Court Rule 5.1 (Rule Specification), "a Motion to Dismiss must specify the Discovery Rule that a lawyer wishes to submit under" (emphaisis mine). Because this motion to dismiss does not specify a discovery rule (no discovery rule number is given, and "lack of jurisdiction" is not itself a named rule), this motion cannot be entertained.
2. The motion is wrong on substance. Counter-Defendant appears to make two substantial arguments: (1) that the Counter-Defendant has not been tried for fraud; and (2) that Counter-Plaintiff is not able to pursue remedies because they cannot bring criminal charges.
   
   To address the first argument, the argument is fully inconsistent with statute. Under Redmont Civil Code Act, "Conviction of a criminal offence is not required for a civil violation to be established" (RCCA, Part II, Section 6(1)(b)) and "A civil action may proceed regardless of whether criminal charges have been laid, are pending, or have resulted in acquittal" (RCCA, Part II, Section 6(3)(b)). This makes sense, since civil procedings are separate from criminal procedings (c.f. RCCA, Part II, Section 6(3)(a)) and private parties seeking remedy for tort claims have distinct interests from the Commonwealth seeking to punish crime using state power.
   
   Next, to address the second argument: it has been long recognized that private parties may seek tort liability for criminal actions committed against them (see for example: ToadKing v. Culls [2025] DCR 82, "Consequential Damages for Defendant’s violation of the [Criminal Code Act] are granted"; YeetGlazer v. Commonwealth of Redmont[2025] FCR 76, Finding of Fact No. 2, citing the definition of corruption "Under the Criminal Code Act"; Fish's Financial LLC v. .AstuteSundew823 [2025] FCR 122, granting "full relief" for three civil claims each arising from Defendant's violation of the Criminal Code Act). This includes in the context of fraud (see: Vanguard & Co v. Naezaratheus [2025] FCR 32, "this court does find Naezaratheus civilly responsible for fraud"; Lucaaasserole v. Naezaratheus et al. [2025] FCR 50, "for civil damages and liability the plaintiff does seem to be clearly defrauded due to the defendants multiple omissions of important facts").
   
   These same civil causes of action arising from violations of the Criminal Code Act are not abbrogated by the Redmont Civil Code Act (RCCA); rather, these causes of action continue to be permitted under the RCCA. Part II, Section 4(2) of the RCCA notes that the law "permits civil damages to be sought for crimes". Part II, Section 4(3) et seq. notes that "[w]here a wrong constitutes both a crime under the Criminal Code and a violation under this Code, the plaintiff may... [p]ursue civil damages arising from the crime under the Criminal Code".

As such, the long-recognized ability to pursue civil damages arising from a violation of the CCA continues even in the era of the RCCA. As this is not criminal prosecution, but instead civil action to recover damages, Counter-Plaintiff's claim should proceed under the law. The Counter-Defendant's motion should be denied.

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS (Section 3.1)
Frivolous Claims

As established by the Whistleblowers Act




The counter-plaintiff claims that the counter-defendant had committed Breach of Contract under the RCCA, however by the counter-defendant and Oakridge Community Bank bringing a case against the counter-plaintiff and "breaking" the non-disclosure agreement in the Federal Court, the counter-defendant is protected under the Whistleblowers Act as they were presenting information regarding the counter-plaintiff's illegal actions of Breach of Contract with the counter-defendant and Oakridge Community Bank.

Response

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS (Section 3.1)
Your Honor,

Counter-Defendant's motion is deficient for on both procedural and substantial grounds, and we respectfully ask that their motion for dismissal be denied:

1. The motion is invalid on procedural grounds. Under Court Rule 5.1 (Rule Specification), "a Motion to Dismiss must specify the Discovery Rule that a lawyer wishes to submit under" (emphaisis mine). Because this motion to dismiss does not specify a discovery rule (no discovery rule number is given, and "Frivolous Claims" is not itself a named rule), this motion cannot be entertained.
2. The substance of the Whistleblowers Act does not motivate dismissal. The Whistleblowers Act is a fairly short and simple act. At the time of its passage, the act (1) defined what a whistleblower is; (2) provided anonymity to whistleblowers; (3) created a (since-superseded) punishment for revealing whistleblowers; and (4) made it unlawful "for the Government to punish whistle blowers".
   
   We thus must ask the question: Does the text of the Whistleblowers Act preempt the Counter-Plaintiff's Breach of Contract claim? Our answer is simple: No.
   
   The second and third functions of the Whistleblowers Act clearly do not apply; we're not dealing with the anonymity of an anonymous whistleblower nor seeking to force an identity to be revealed. The Fourth operative clause also does not apply; the Counter-Plaintiff is a civil litigant seeking relief from a tort, not the Commonwealth seeking to punish someone.
   
   While the first operative function of the law does define what a "whistleblower" is, whether or not Counter-Defendant is would be academic rather than relevant to this case. This is because none of the protections established in the Whistleblowers Act would actually bar this cause of action; even if the Court were to determine that the Counter-Defendant met the definition in Whistleblowers Act 2(1), Counter-Defendant has failed to establish (1) that the act's protections would bar a breach-of-contract claim; and (2) that such protections would supersede the supremacy of the Redmont Civil Code Act over other laws purporting to regulate civil liability (see: RCCA, Part II, Sections 3-4).

As such, the motion filed by Counter-Defendant suffers both from a procedural defect and a lack of substantial backing in the law. The Whistleblowers Act does not provide protections against breach of contract. The Counter-Defendant's motion for dismissal should be denied.

 

[RiggoSoft]

Your honor before you rule on these please allow the counter-defendant to submit some objections to the counter-plaintiff's rebuttal to the motions presented by the counter-defendant

 

[RiggoSoft]

Also your honor how would you like to proceed with this as this may get tricky as two cases are going on at once do you want to do one at a time or both simultaneously. I am also preparing my objections to be submitted tomorrow as it is quite late at the moment for the counter-defendant and plaintiff.

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR IN-GAME TRIAL

Your Honor,

Pursuant to Rule 7.1 (In-Game Trial Requests), defense requests an in-game trial on the original case following the conclusion of discovery, provided that we can find a time for all witnesses, counsels, parties, and Your Honor to be present.

 

[RiggoSoft]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR IN-GAME TRIAL

Your Honor,

Pursuant to Rule 7.1 (In-Game Trial Requests), defense requests an in-game trial on the original case following the conclusion of discovery, provided that we can find a time for all witnesses, counsels, parties, and Your Honor to be present.

The plaintiff would not like to do this

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honor,

Following my recent confirmation as a judge on the FCR, I am going to be transitioning this case off to a new counsel.

I understand that this case has been dormant for a bit pending Your Honor's rulings. As such, while I don't anticipate this affects any present deadlines urgently, I am letting you know that (following your rulings on existing motions and other pending items) a new counsel may appear on behalf of defendant/counter-plaintiff.

 

[MJL]

Your Honor,

I am here to present myself on behalf of the Defendant as Multiman's replacement.

Spoiler

 

[RiggoSoft]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS (Section 3.1)
Frivolous Claims

As established by the Whistleblowers Act




The counter-plaintiff claims that the counter-defendant had committed Breach of Contract under the RCCA, however by the counter-defendant and Oakridge Community Bank bringing a case against the counter-plaintiff and "breaking" the non-disclosure agreement in the Federal Court, the counter-defendant is protected under the Whistleblowers Act as they were presenting information regarding the counter-plaintiff's illegal actions of Breach of Contract with the counter-defendant and Oakridge Community Bank.

your honor can we have a ruling on this

 

[RiggoSoft]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS (Section 3.2)
Lack of Jurisdiction

The counter-defendant brings this motion to court

As established by the Criminal Code Act



The counter-plaintiff's claim for relief based off of fraud cannot be given as no one has tried the counter-defendant for fraud which is an indictable offence (See MD-01), and the counter-plaintiff is not in a position where they can bring charges through the Criminal Code Act. As such we humbly ask that this claim is to be dismissed because the plaintiff lacks the jurisdiction to do so.

Spoiler: MD-01

View attachment 75794

Additionally your honor I will be posting a motion to dismiss on the other charge as well later tonight

Your honor we rescind this motion due to filing reasons and bring forth this motion to the court.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS (Rule 5.4, Personal Jurisdiction)
For claim of relief of Fraud.

As established by the Criminal Code Act

(3) Indictable Offence means an offence that must be prosecuted through formal legal proceedings, where the accused is entitled to a fair trial and the opportunity to contest the charges before a judicial officer, and are prosecuted by the Department of Justice.

7 - Fraud
Offence Type: Indictable
Penalty: Up to 100 Penalty Units; up to 10 min imprisonment
A person commits an offence if the person:
(a) knowingly or recklessly misrepresents or omits a material fact to another, causing the other party to rely on that misrepresentation, resulting in actual, quantifiable harm.

The Criminal Code Act includes this section for this exact reason, so private citizens cannot try other citizens for Indictable Offenses which fraud is. Thus the counter-plaintiff lacks the personal jurisdiction to pursue this claim and this claim must be dismissed with prejudice.

 

[Matthew100x]

I will be taking over as presiding Judge on this case since the honorable Dr_Eksplosive has left the bench. I will be reviewing the case over, but can the parties (or counsel for parties) please let me know what is pending within the next 72 hours. I will resume the case from there and make decisions on whatever is outstanding. I will then direct the case from there on what comes next.

 

[RiggoSoft]

I will be taking over as presiding Judge on this case since the honorable Dr_Eksplosive has left the bench. I will be reviewing the case over, but can the parties (or counsel for parties) please let me know what is pending within the next 72 hours. I will resume the case from there and make decisions on whatever is outstanding. I will then direct the case from there on what comes next.

From plaintiff & counter-defendant
Post #21's motion to dismiss (counter claim)
Post #9's motion to dismiss (counter claim)

 

[MJL]

Counter-Plaintiff responded to a previous MTD (post number #7) in post number #12.
Counter-Plaintiff also responded to MTD #9 in post #13.
Both should be reviewed to assist the court in determining its rulings.

 

[RiggoSoft]

Your honor we rescind this motion due to filing reasons and bring forth this motion to the court.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS (Rule 5.4, Personal Jurisdiction)
For claim of relief of Fraud.

As established by the Criminal Code Act





The Criminal Code Act includes this section for this exact reason, so private citizens cannot try other citizens for Indictable Offenses which fraud is. Thus the counter-plaintiff lacks the personal jurisdiction to pursue this claim and this claim must be dismissed with prejudice.

Your honor may I ammend

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honor may I ammend

No.

 

[Matthew100x]

Verdict

In the District Court of Redmont, the Court has come to the following decision on the two motions to dismiss against the counterclaim (Post #7 and #9).

To begin, the Motion to Dismiss on grounds of a "Frivolous Claims" (Post #9) is not recognized by the Information - Court Rules and Procedures. As such, they will not be considered under Court Rule 5.1.

That said, I will do an analysis on the Motion to Dismiss for "Lack of Jurisdiction" as if it were plead under Court Rules 5.4 and 5.12.

To begin, original jurisdiction is defined in one of two ways. One is where the Constitution duly authorizes a Court to hear cases over a matter (see Issue II: Standing, Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. Sofia2750 [2026] SCR 2). Second is where such jurisdiction is duly authorized by Congress (see Part IX, https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/judicial-standards-act.34670/; see also Lawsuit: Pending - IgnitedTnT v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2026] FCR 20).

Here, the original jurisdiction invoked in the because "minor‌ ‌civil‌ ‌cases‌ ‌whose‌ ‌value‌ ‌does‌ ‌not‌ ‌exceed‌ more than $120,000 dollars" go to the District Court (See 16(1)(e), Government - Constitution). As the original Plaintiff in their complaint requested $91,000 dollars of damages ($50,000 + $20,000 = $70,000*0.30=$91,000), jurisdiction for the original action is proper in the District Court.

For counterclaims to be viable within the same case thread, they must meet the jurisdictional limit of the Court where the relief is requested. This is because the Court must be able to adjudicate the claims presented, and a counterclaim that exceeds the Court's limit must be pursued as it's own separate case. (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - Snowy_Heart v Commonwealth [2023] FCR 76 (Counterclaim is moved to its own thread for another Judge to adjudicate as to avoid a Conflict of Interest)). Here, the Counter-Plaintiff ("CPlaintiff") requested equitable relief and damages from the Counter-Defendant ("CDefendant") that do not exceed the jurisdictional limitation. There has been no other request of this Court that exceeds jurisdictional limits, and as such the Court retains proper jurisdiction over the counterclaim.

Moving onto personal jurisdiction. A motion to dismiss on personal jurisdiction resolves around whether or not a plaintiff (or a cplaintiff in this case) has sufficient standing. (see Court Rule 5.12, Information - Court Rules and Procedures). Standing requirements are as follows: 1) An injury caused by a clear second party; or is affected by an application of law; 2) the cause of injury was against the law; 3) Remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision. (see Rule 2.1, Information - Court Rules and Procedures).

The issue at hand is whether or not the CPlaintiff retains standing to pursue liability for civil damages for a criminal action. More specifically, the CDefendant argues: "The counter-plaintiff's claim for relief based off of fraud cannot be given as no one has tried the counter-defendant for fraud which is an indictable offence (See MD-01), and the counter-plaintiff is not in a position where they can bring charges through the Criminal Code Act." (see Lawsuit: Pending - RiggoSoft V. Dimitre977 [2026] DCR 25). CPlaintiff points to various cases and laws to support the proposition that their damage request is indeed supported.

In Appeal: Denied - In re [2026] FCR 8 | [2026] SCR 8, the Supreme Court decided that cases should be decided by the controlling law of the time the alleged breach occurred. This does present an interesting quandary of whether or not this Court should follow this decision, as the arguments made to the motion occurred prior to the release of this decision. Nonetheless, this Court will favor standing precedent and apply the law that controlled at the time the facts were alleged.

This puts us down to separate paths. In the first path, at the time of the complaint, the facts dictate that issue occurred prior to the passage of the Civil Code Act. In the second path, the facts of the counterclaim occurred under the Redmont Civil Code Act, primarily for actions that occurred prior to the passage of said law. This Court is predisposed to decline on deciding this issue at this time as it was not properly briefed or addressed by the litigants at present.

That said, it is a feature of our common law that civil damages may be pursued for criminal liability. Under the Criminal Code Act prior to the passage of the Redmont Civil Code Act, a person was allowed to collect damages under civil liability for crimes. (see Part 2, Act of Congress - Redmont Civil Code Act). Post Redmont Civil Code, a person may still collect civil damages for crimes. (see §4(2)-(4), https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/redmont-civil-code-act.34c107/). This follows the general principle that damages for fraud may be pursued under an applicable remedies law for civil damages, but not for criminal fines or jailtime (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - MegaMinerM v. Blazora Corporation [2025] FCR 27 ("'The civil court is used to obtain compensation and punitive damages as a result of actions done by the defendant. The civil court is not a citizen laying out criminal charges and pursuing these charges. Instead, civil court should be seen as a party seeking compensation as a result of actions done, whether that be from criminal statute or extraneous circumstances'" (quoting Lawsuit: Adjourned - The_Donuticus v. GER et al. [2022] SCR 18)).

Returning to standing analysis, this motion to dismiss is analyzing the three factors. These three factors test whether the case meets prima facie standards, not whether the claim will ultimately be meritorious. First, the counterclaim alleges an injury of nominal damages caused by the CDefendant. The injury is both monetary and equitable. This meets the standard of "some injury" and fulfills the first prong of standing. Second, the CPlaintiff alleges fraud for "misrepresenting the financial status of Oakridge Community bank... inducing the [CPlaintiff] to sign... made false representations that all contractual obligations [between the parties] have been fulfilled... caus[ing] [CPlaintiff] harm." (Lawsuit: Pending - RiggoSoft V. Dimitre977 [2026] DCR 25). This claim likely meets the legal requirement for fraud, which is against the law, and the injury is related to the alleged unlawful activity; thus the second prong is fulfilled. Third, this Court can grant all remedy requested by the CPlaintiff, thus the third prong is fulfilled.

This Court will leave it to Counsel to address the issue of law on what the controlling law is for Fraud (whether it be the Redmont Civil Code or Redmont Criminal Code) within the opening statements, as well as what standards should govern either the counterclaim, the original claim, or both. As it stands, the CDefendant's motion to dismiss is denied.

We shall now be moving towards Discovery. Discovery will end in 5 days. Discovery can be voluntarily ended or extended with both parties agreeing to do so. Please remember the following rules:

Rule 4.2 (Submission Required For Use)​

All material used in legal arguments must have either been included in the case prior to the submission. Material must have been included within the complaint, within the answer, within an amendment to a complaint, within an amendment to an answer, or within a discovery submission. Otherwise the material will be deemed inadmissible and the argument can be voided by the presiding judge.

Rule 4.5 (Consent to End Discovery Early)​

If both parties consent to end Discovery early, they may request the presiding Judicial Officer to move to the next phase of the trial.

Rule 4.9 (Witness Protocol)​

A party may submit a list for witnesses at any time before the end of discovery. In order for a witness to be called during witness testimony, they must be announced under this rule, during discovery. Any witness may be objected to according to the objections laid out within rule 6.3.

Failure to adhere to the timelines of this rule may subject that party to a contempt of court charge at the presiding judge’s decision. The presiding judge shall include a warning regarding the timeline when summoning the witness.

 

[Matthew100x]

Reminding both parties that about 48 hours remain in discovery.

 

[MJL]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION TO COMPEL

The Defense and Counter Plaintiff hereby submits the following requests to the Plaintiff and Counter Defendant pursuant to the Court's Discovery Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement).

Document requests

1. All communications between Riggosoft and ftlceo concerning OCB, Riggosoft's finances, or related matters.

2. Any and all communications between Riggosoft and 12700k ("Palantir") relating to their purchase of 123,100 shares of OCB ("D-X05").

3. All OCB financial reports dated after November 2025 and before February 2026.

4. The OCB shareholder resolution dated 12/22/2025.

5. Any ticket communications between Riggosoft and members of the DoC concerning OCB submitted or non-submitted financial reports.

6. An anonymized list of account holders, including account balances, at the time (or the closest date before) OCB hired dimitre977 as CEO.

7. A list of bonds offered, packaged, or sold by the OCB throughout its lifetime.

8. All communications between Riggosoft and Sagamo2008 concerning OCB, Riggosoft's finances, Sagamo2008's finances, or related matters.

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Voluntarily Submission of Discovery

Under Rules 4.6 (Submission of Discovery, Voluntarily) and Rule 4.9 (Witness Protocol), the Defense and Counter Plaintiff hereby submits the following into evidence:

1. Documents submitted

A. OCB October Financial Report ("D-X01")
B. OCB November Financial Report (D-X02")
C. OCB-003 Loan ("D-X03")
D. Oakridge Community Bank - closed-0016 ("D-X03")
E. Notice of Deliquency ("D-X03")
F. Oakridge Community Bank Shareholder Agreement ("D-X04")
G. Certificate of Ownership 12700k ("D-X05")
H. Sagamo2008 Certificate of Ownership #1 ("D-X06")
I. Sagamo2008 Certificate of Ownership #2 ("D-X06")
J. Sagamo2008 Certificate of Ownership #3 ("D-X06")
K. Sagamo2008 Certificate of Ownership #4 ("D-X06")
L. Sagamo2008 Certificate of Ownership #5 ("D-X06")
M. Red Nose Capital LLC statement of assets 21 December 2025 ("D-X07")
N. RiggoSoft - Grant Application ("D-X08")

2. Witness list

A. XinmjirGamingHQ
B. 12700k
C. No additional witnesses beyond what was previous submitted.

Spoiler: D-X01

Attached Oct Finacial Report.pdf

Spoiler: D-X02

Attached Nov Finacial Report (1).pdf

Spoiler: D-X03

[2025] DCR 106, incorporated by reference including attachments to posts in that case. See: OakRidge Community Bank v. XinmjirGamingHQ [2025] DCR 106. Evidences numbers P-01, P-02, and P-03.

Spoiler: D-X04

Attached Oakridge Community Bank Shareholder Agreement (3).pdf

Spoiler: D-X05

Attached Certificate of Ownership 12700k (1).pdf

Spoiler: D-X06

Oakridge Community Bank Company Docket, incorporated by reference including attachments or external links to posts (#5, #6, #7, and #8).

Spoiler: D-X07

Attached D-X07.pdf. Incorporated from p-002 of [2025] FCR 136.

Spoiler: D-X08

 

[Matthew100x]

Any opposition to the motion to compel?

 

[MJL]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Your honor, a party to this case, Riggosoft, has abrubtly announced the closure of OCB and encouraged clients to withdraw assets ("D-E01").


This action, along with Riggosoft's transfer of OCB shares to the Redmontian Riggo Family Wealth Fund ("D-E02") raises enough concern that we request a freeze on all OCB's and Riggosoft's assets until this court renders its judgement.

Spoiler: D-E01

Spoiler: D-E02

 

[RiggoSoft]

Any opposition to the motion to compel?

Yes will post later today or tonight

 

[Matthew100x]

We'll pause the end of discovery (discovery is still ongoing for all intents and purposes) for now. @RiggoSoft (or their counsel) has 48 hours to post a response to the motion to compel and I will decide from there.

 

[RiggoSoft]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION TO COMPEL

The Defense and Counter Plaintiff hereby submits the following requests to the Plaintiff and Counter Defendant pursuant to the Court's Discovery Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement).

Document requests

1. All communications between Riggosoft and ftlceo concerning OCB, Riggosoft's finances, or related matters.

2. Any and all communications between Riggosoft and 12700k ("Palantir") relating to their purchase of 123,100 shares of OCB ("D-X05").

3. All OCB financial reports dated after November 2025 and before February 2026.

4. The OCB shareholder resolution dated 12/22/2025.

5. Any ticket communications between Riggosoft and members of the DoC concerning OCB submitted or non-submitted financial reports.

6. An anonymized list of account holders, including account balances, at the time (or the closest date before) OCB hired dimitre977 as CEO.

7. A list of bonds offered, packaged, or sold by the OCB throughout its lifetime.

8. All communications between Riggosoft and Sagamo2008 concerning OCB, Riggosoft's finances, Sagamo2008's finances, or related matters.

Your honor this motion to compel from the counter-plaintiff is extremely nonsenseical and an invasion of my privacy, but beyond that there is other reasons why this laughable motion should be denied for all requests.

1) The counter-plaintiff's has requested for all communications between myself and ftlceo. There are multiple issues with this, first of which ftlceo is not nor has ever been a citizen of the Commonwealth of Redmont.

Second the defendant is pursuing claims against the counter-defendant on Breach of Contract for alledgedly breaching a non disclosure agreement, and for fraud which they are accusing the counter defendant of

Counter-Defendant omitted and/or misrepresented the financial status of Oakridge Community Bank

See post #6
None of which require the conversations to whom does not exsist nor never has exsisted about my personal finances, or OCB's finances, or ambigiously "related matters." Additionally my personal finances have nothing to the relation of me breaking an NDA or ommitting and or/misrepersenting the finacial status of Oakridge Community Bank.

Third the defendant has made no attempt or communication to the court or the counter-defendant on why the materials are needed because they know that they are not needed and an invasion of privacy.

We plead with the court to deny this incredibly invasive request.

2) The counter-plaintiff's request for any and all communications between myself and 12700k (On behalf of Palantir) regarding their alleged purchase of 123,100 shares of OCB cannot be approved for 2 reasons.


First of which being, RiggoSoft never had sold shares to 12700k on behalf of Palantir. Instead RiggoSoft had sold shares to Aeysr_ on behalf of Palantir on October 18th 2025 as documented in the company docket in post #2, which the counter-plaintiff could have seen if they wanted to have looked, which the shares were then "transferred" (Shares will still owned by Palantir but had 12700k listed as the custodian on the docket) to 12700k privately by Aeysr_ in a sale agreement with 12700k regarding the sale of Palantir and all of its assets as the court can see in the company docket on post #3 on November 4th 2025.

Second, the counter-plaintiff's claims against the counter-defendant in this matter have no reason to need the communications between myself and 12700k for a deal that never happened because they are claiming that I breached an NDA and I ommitted material information regarding the finacial status of Oakridge Community Bank. Even if this did matter, which it doesn't they are claiming I ommitted material information regarding the finacial status of Oakridge Community Bank which has nothing to do with my personal finances or dealings.

We beg the court to deny this useless request.

3) The request from the counter-plaintiff requesting all finacial reports dated after November 2025 and Before Febuary 2026 must be denied for the following reasons.

First, if the counter-plaintiff had done their job they would have access to all of these finacial reports anyway.

Second, the need for finacial reports for the month of January 2026 is not needed as this does not relate to anythign regarding the finacial condition prior to the counter-plaintiff joining the bank which they are currently claiming fraud against the conter-defendant for joining because the counter-defendant misrepersented/ommitted material information regarding the finacial condition. If the counter-defendant did do that which they didn't the materials for Januarary 2026 would not be needed as that is after the agreement was signed by both parties as established by facts agreed by both parties in the original filing.

4. The resolution is publicly avaliable on the company docket on post #13. Which the counter-plaintiff has access to and has gotten information from for this case.

Approve or deny this request, however the contents are avaliable on post #13 so their request is not needed and simply a waste of time and resources from all parties therefore we ask you to deny this request.

5. For the counter-plaintiff's request for any ticket communications between RiggoSoft and members of the DOC regarding OCB reports must be denied for the following reasons.

First and most importantly. The counter-defendant to the best of their knowledge does not have access to these communications anymore.

Additionally the counter-plaintiff has not stated how this evidence if it could be given or if given would support their claims of the breach of an NDA clause in the employment agreement or the counter-defendant defrauding the counter-plaintiff by ommitting/misrepersenting facts when hiring the counter-plaintiff.

6. For the counter-plaintiff's request of an anonymized list of account holders. As stated in the conversationg with the counter-plaintiff and the counter-defendant regarding the hiring of them, the counter-defendant stated that there was no record that existed, and here to reafirm it the counter-defendant states that there is no record and has never been any record of account holders.

Spoiler: CD-MC-01

Therefore this request must be denied

7. For the request of a list of bonds offered,etc by OCB by the counterplaintiff. That information is publicly avaliable in the Oakridge Community Bank discord server which both the counter-plaintiff, and the counter-defendant are currently in or were currently in.

Therefore for that reason we ask the court to deny this request.

8. For the request of all communications between Riggosoft and Sagamo2008 concerning OCB, Riggosoft's finances, Sagamo2008's finances, or related matters. There are multiple reasons for this request needing to be denied.

First, the communication of my personal finances does not need to be included in this case because it has nothing to do with the claims of me defrauding the counter-plaintiff or violating a NDA clause. Same goes for the personal finances of Sagamo2008.

Second, any and all communication with Sagamo2008 has no relevance to the counter-plaintiff's claims of the counter-defendant defrauding the counter-plaintiff or the counter-defendant violating an NDA clause.


Third, The counter-defendant fails to mention why it is relevant that all information regarding OCB's finances that would be communicated between Sagamo2008 and RiggoSoft be released. The reason being because there is no valid reasoning.

Therefore this request must be denied.


In conclusion none of these request have any merit and must be denied in whole without any exception.

Additionally your honor I will be responding to the emergency injuction as well as submitting additional motions to strike regarding the counter-plaintiffs language however cannot do it tonight or tomorrow so the counter-defendant would like to ask for a possible extension of an additional 24 hours added to the 48 hour deadline. If not able to the counter-defendant may be able to reply to the injuction hastily however it will not allow the counter-defendant the fair chance at their defense. Thank you your honor.

 

[Matthew100x]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Your honor, a party to this case, Riggosoft, has abrubtly announced the closure of OCB and encouraged clients to withdraw assets ("D-E01").


This action, along with Riggosoft's transfer of OCB shares to the Redmontian Riggo Family Wealth Fund ("D-E02") raises enough concern that we request a freeze on all OCB's and Riggosoft's assets until this court renders its judgement.

Spoiler: D-E01

View attachment 79353

Spoiler: D-E02

View attachment 79354

This motion is denied, but will be taken into consideration if need be for determining damages.

 

[Matthew100x]

I see many factual defenses here against the motion to compel that can serve as answers to the motion to compel. Does the moving party (@MJL) have any objections to the answers being judicially noticed as factual? If not, what specific information is needed here that cannot be fulfilled by the information given?

 

[MJL]

I see many factual defenses here against the motion to compel that can serve as answers to the motion to compel. Does the moving party (@MJL) have any objections to the answers being judicially noticed as factual? If not, what specific information is needed here that cannot be fulfilled by the information given?

Only in part does the defence (and counter-plaintiff) agree that plaintiff (and counter-defendant)'s answer serve to sufficiently respond to the request.

1. For Request 1, plaintiff (and counter-defendant) does not deny that these communications exist. ftlceo was, very briefly, an accountant at OCB ("P-02"). It is unclear what was discussed between ftlceo and Riggosoft, but having that material might prove critical to the case given that ftlceo very abruptly quit according to exhibit P-02.

2. Defence and counter-plaintiff will withdraw this portion of the request.

3. A simple request for these reports does not appear too onerous. My client still worked for OCB in January, so financial reports for January make sense to request.

4. While Post 13 of the Company Docket does include the newly amended shareholder agreement, it is formatted in such a way that makes it difficult to state the correct time that the resolution passed (as well as what was specifically changed). Defence and Counter-Plaintiff felt it would be simpler for the court to have Riggosoft post this information because he has access to the shareholder discord where this information would display the exact language and correct timestamp.

5. If the plaintiff does not have access to this information, then we are willing to withdraw this part of the motion. However, the reasoning for the request was because the defence is being sued for defamation in relation to statements made by my client to the DoC. Having access to additional context for those conversations only makes sense especially because
the plaintiff is requesting "$20,000 in Compensatory Damages for the defendants loss of reputation with... the Department of Commerce..."

6. We are requesting said database.

7. It is not exactly clear if the public list is accurate? According to my understanding, the bot claims OCB-005 is still available for sale (having never been bought) despite reaching maturity 2 weeks ago. Defence/Counter-Plaintiff will withdraw this request if that can be confirmed.

8. Again, it feels like that the Counter-Defendant has forgotten they are also the plaintiff of this case? Both Riggosoft and Sagamo2008 were shareholders in the bank, held accounts in the bank, and had strong financial ties to the bank. D-X07 shows that Sagamo2008's company (Red Nose Capital) had $120,050 deposited into the bank (See Exhibit P-005 of [2025] FCR 136 for evidence of ownership). Communications between the two are directly relevant to the heart of the matter in this case. Are we not litigating the state of OCB's finances, its legal troubles, and general status at the time my client was hired as CEO? How else are we going to determine whether my client was lied to?