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