- Joined
- Aug 21, 2025
- Messages
- 321
- Thread Author
- #1
Case Filing
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
RiggoSoft
Plaintiff
v.
Jakku
Defendant
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows
WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
I. PARTIES
1. RiggoSoft (Plaintiff)
2. Jakkuwu (Defendant)
3. Incarnation__ (Witness)
4. ElysiaCrynn (Witness of conversation, and a representative of the Department of Commerce)
5. Multiman155 (Witness)
6. TrueDarklander (Witness)
II. FACTS
All dates are in mm/dd/yy format and times are in Eastern Standard Time in AM/PM format
1. On 3/12/26 at 9:13 AM Incarnation__ sends a message in the #economics channel on the DemocracyCraft discord server "@Elysia Crynn C Pantalone you see this LMFAO riggo used the grant to pay himself $21.500 by transferring the plot from himself to his company (not even legal I think)" and attached an image of the grant application of the plaintiffs explanation of how grant funds were used. (P-01)
2. On 3/12/26 at 11:58 AM TrueDarklander says in the channel responding to the plaintiff's defense for his actions "the issue is buying from yourself in this case"
(P-04)
3. On 3/12/26 at 12:04 PM the defendant sends 3 messages in the #economics channel adding his thoughts into the conversation. The first of which contains "The issue is" the second contains "companies cant own land" and the final and third message contains "period" presenting this claim as a fact that is not up for debate. (P-04)
4. On 3/12/26 at 12:05 PM after learning further about the situation the defendant responds with 2 additional messages. The first of which contained "he was buying land FROM himself?" and the second contained "with GRANT money?" in the #economics channel. (P-04)
5. On 3/12/26 at 12:06 PM the defendant says 4 messages regarding the situation. The first one contains "thats just fraud" and the second message contains "companies cant own land" and the third message contains "or conduct real estate transactions" and the fourth and final message contains "theres nobody to transfer the land to but the owner of the company" to try and make his claim of the plaintiff defrauding the DOC sound reasonable and defame the plaintiff, in the channel. (P-05)
6. On 3/12/26 at 12:07 PM the defendant claims that "it can't be a company asset" to try and make it seem like the plaintiff had paid himself using grant money to buy an asset he already owned, in the #economics channel for all to see (P-05).
7. On 3/12/26 at 12:07 PM the defendant furthermore backs up his claim saying that "that almost sounds like selling shares to yourself..." in the channel (P-06).
8. On 3/12/26 at 12:07 PM the defendant says in the #economics channel "im suing riggo" and "for grant fraud" attempting to win public support and seem like a noble character while also defaming the plaintiff and making it seem as though they had defrauded the DOC (P-06).
9. On 3/12/26 at 12:08 PM Incarnation__ disagrees with the defendant saying "well its not FRAUD" (P-08)
10. On 3/12/26 at 12:08 PM Incarnation__ continues to explain why it is not fraud and continues disagreeing with the defendant by saying "he just did the wording wrong" (P-09)
11. On 3/12/26 at 12:08 PM the defendant says in the channel "it definitely sounds like fraud to buy land from yourself" in attempts to further damage the plaintiff's reputation and defame them (P-10)
12. On 3/12/26 at 12:10 PM the defendant says "No its for the fact that companies cant own lland" trying to justify their claims of fraud and continue defaming the plaintiff. (P-11)
13. On 3/12/26 at 12:12 PM an onlooker of the chat, Multiman155, asks "how would you have the standing to sue" to which the defendant responds "cuz i said so" to scare the plaintiff into a possible settlement offer the defendant planned to send to the plaintiff (P-12)
14. On 3/12/26 at 12:14 PM Incarnation__ says in the channel "well UNTIL elysia and the DoC weights in, we dont know" logically disagreeing with the defendants statement that this constitutes fraud. (P-13)
15. On 3/12/26 at 12:21 PM the defendant sends 2 messages in the channel "am i the only one caught up on him selling himself a plot" and "am i the only one who thinks thats crazy" misrepresenting facts in attempts to further defame the plaintiff and persuade people to supporting his side of the argument which works when an onlooker, TrueDarklander, of the chat responds to him with "it is kinda crazy yes" (P-14)
16. On 3/12/26 at 12:22 PM an onlooker ,.adisfatm, comments disagreeing with the defendants statement posed in fact #10 with "Pretty sure they can" (P-14)
17. On 3/12/26 at 12:22 PM the defendant doubles down and once more disagrees with the onlooker by saying "positive they cant" (P-14)
18. On 3/12/26 at 12:23 PM the defendant sends 2 more messages in the channel "I would argue that's fraud even assuming they own it on paper" and "especially if its an LLC or corp" to attempt and make it seem as though the transfer of property that resulted in the use of the grant funds was invalid and further support his claim of the plaintiff defrauding the DOC and further defame the plaintiff. (P-16)
19. On 3/12/26 at 12:24 PM. After another onlooker disagrees with him the defendant responds in the channel with the following messages "companies cant own plots period" and "no ifs or buts" to attempt and further support his claim that the plaintiff had defrauded the DOC and continue defaming the plaintiff. (P-16)
20. On 3/12/26 at 1:06 PM the defendant sends 2 messages in the channel. The first of which contains "Uhoh" and the second contains "Fraud!" in an attempt to further defame the plaintiff and support their claim that the plaintiff had defrauded the DOC. (P-18)
21. On 3/12/26 at 1:34 PM the defendant sends a message in the channel that contains "I mean businesses can't own land" furthermore defending their claim that the plaintiffs actions constitute fraud. (P-31)
22. On 3/12/26 at 1:38 PM the defendant sends a message in the channel "I'm suing you" in attempts to allow people to accommodate the defendant for their actions, defame the reputation of the plaintiff, and scare the plaintiff. (P-35)
23. On 3/12/26 at 1:39 PM the defendant sends another message in the channel "See ur ass in court" to further scare the plaintiff. (P-35)
24. On 3/12/26 at 1:39 PM the defendant attempts to ping the President by sending a message in the channel that contains "@ PRESIDENT" with the hopes of garnering further attention and to defame the plaintiff further. (P-36)
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
Count #1 - Defamation (Part V, Section 1, of the Redmont Civil Code Act)
As demonstrated in facts 4,5,6,7,8,11,12,15,17,18,19,20, and 21 the defendant had intentionally either successfully made a statement that defamed the plaintiff directly or made a statement to defend their defamatory claims against the plaintiff.
As required by the defamation tort it requires the person " (a)makes a false statement and/or communication that injures a third party’s reputation; (b) the statement is made to at least one person other than the plaintiff; and (c) the statement is presented as fact rather than opinion."
So now we must ask ourselves does the defendants actions constitute this. The answer is yes.
These are false statements because
1) The plaintiff has never been boughten upon charges of fraud criminally or civilly by the Commonwealth or the Department of Commerce.
2) The plaintiff did not omit or misrepresent any information regarding the use of the grant funds during the grant application as they made it clear some of the money would be used for the acquisition of land (P-37 & P-38)
The statements injured the plaintiff's reputation as now due to defendant's comments regarding the plaintiff's actions individuals believe that the plaintiff is untrustworthy and abuses the systems provided by the Commonwealth to support the economy. This damage can be seen directly when considering the plaintiff is a spokesman for the Rhinestone Tweed Group and now due to the defamatory messages sent by the defendant less people are to trust the plaintiff in their spokesman role at the Rhinestone Tweed Group and thus has hindered his ability to perform his job well.
We can also clearly see that these comments were made to more than one other person than the plaintiff as many people join in on the conversation responding to the defendant's comments agreeing and disagreeing with them.
Finally as seen in fact #5 specifically the defendant claims "thats just fraud" when referring to the plaintiff's actions while not specifying that was their belief they provided this comment as it had already been proven by a court and the plaintiff was found guilty.
Count #2 Slander (Part V, Section 3, of the Redmont Civil Code Act)
The defendant slanders the plaintiff throughout the entirety of this situation as established by count #1.
The requirements for a person to be found liable of slander are " (a) commits defamation as defined in Section 1 of this Part; and (b) the defamatory statement is made verbally, through Discord messages, or in-game messages; and
(c) the statement defames another person’s reputation, business, profession, or organisation"
For the first requirement as seen in count #1 defamation has been committed by the defendant. The second requirement is as clear as the first as the whole disagreement and argument happens over discord in the #economics channel of the DemocracyCraft discord server. The third requirement is apparent as well, this can be seen by the people joining in on the conversation voicing their negative views on the plaintiff due to the defendants comments and persuasion and the deterioration of the plaintiff's reputation and the reputation of their business, Leaf Capital, who was the actual recipient of the grant.
Count #3 Malicious Allegation (Part XII, Section 5, of the Redmont Civil Code Act)
As seen in facts 5,8,10,17, and 19 the defendant maliciously alleged that the plaintiff had defrauded the Commonwealth of Redmont through the misuse of grant funds that were issued by the Department of Commerce to the plaintiff's company.
For someone to be found liable of malicious allegation the following must be true"
(a) makes a false allegation that another person committed a crime or civil violation; and (b) knew or could reasonably infer that the allegation was false; and
(c) the allegation causes harm to the accused person’s reputation, livelihood, or wellbeing."
For the first requirement it is apparent that the defendant had alleged that the plaintiff had committed criminal fraud under the Commercial Standards act. We now must see if the plaintiff had committed fraud under the Commercial Standards Act.
For a person to be convicted they must have "(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." We must ask ourselves did the plaintiff recklessly misrepresent or omit a fact on how the funds were to be used if the grant was to be awarded. The answer is clearly no as the defendant had told the DOC that they would use some of the money to acquire land (P-37 & P-38). This constitutes a false allegation of the plaintiff committing a crime.
For the second requirement the defendant could reasonably infer that the allegations they were making were false as many people were telling them as such and disagreeing with them that the actions done by the plaintiff were lawful and did not constitute fraud. This can be seen with examples such as facts 9,10,13 and 15.
For the third requirement as established by counts #1 and #2 damage to both the reputation of the plaintiff and the plaintiff's company's reputation was the result of the comments made by the defendant.
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. $75,000 in Consequential Damages for Humiliation caused by the defendant's defamation as established in count #1.
2. $25,000 in Compensatory Damages for loss of earning capacity as established in count #1.
3. $25,000 in Punitive Damages for count #1 to deter future defamation from any and to any people.
4. $75,000 in Consequential Damages for Humiliation caused by the defendant's slander as established in count #2.
5. $25,000 in Punitive Damages for count #2 to deter future slander from any and to any people.
6. All slanderous messages to be deleted from the #economics chat for as established by count #2.
7. A written apology that is allowed to be published by the plaintiff addressed to the plaintiff from the defendant apologizing for the harm for which they have caused them and admitting their wrongdoings as established in count #2
8. $75,000 in Consequential Damages for humiliation caused by the defendant's malicious allegations as established in count #3
9. $100,000 in Punitive Damages to deter future malicious allegations from happening from any and to any people.
10. A public statement confirming that the plaintiff had not committed fraud, admitting the defendants wrongdoing, and apologizing for all harm caused to the plaintiff.
11. 30% of all damages awarded to be awarded as Legal Fees
12. $7,500 in Nominal Damages if no other damages are found to be applicable.
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.
Witnesses: Jakku, Incarnation__, ElysiaCrynn, Multiman155, Maxib02, and TrueDarklander
Dated: This 3 day of April 2026
Evidence
Post #7 on grant application
