Lawsuit: Pending TheFlameEmperor1, et al. v. PowerCreaper [2026] FCR 66

DETECTIVHOLMES · Jul 25, 2026

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

TheFlameEmperor1
Plaintiff

ItsEgo
Co- Plaintiff

v.

PowerCreaper
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
Defendant defrauded the plaintiff by claiming ownership of a plot he does not own, leading to damages of $150,000, The plaintiff lacked ownership of the plot and was unable to deliver it, and refused to return plaintiff’s money, loss of the $150,000 was a significant financial burden on the plaintiff.

I. PARTIES
1. TheFlameEmperor1 (Plaintiff)

2. PowerCreaper (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. On 20 July, defendant contacted plaintiff on discord, offering S-plot, S046 for sale.
2. Plaintiff shows temptation to purchase the plot.
3. Payment of $150,000 is sent.
4. Defendant acknowledges the received payment and is aware of the transfer of funds.
5. Plaintiff contacts defendant asking for the plot to be transferred and defendant acts clueless and denies any sale.
6. Plaintiff promises legal action.
7. 21 July, Defendant attempts same scam on another person (RavenReap), and again offers S046 for sale, Agreed upon $100,000.
8. RavenReap asks for pretransfer of the plot and defendant refuses.
9. Defendant initiates an explicit, legal contract, and RavenReap writes a confirming statement.
10. RavenReap discovers the Plaintiff’s lack of ownership on the plot, and defendant claims he owes the owner $80,000.
11. Olisaurus123 (plot owner) publicly claims that the defendant’s statement is false.
12. PowerCreaper used the funds to buy a plot (c525) from Plankeeee and resold it to ItsEgo for an $63,000, Promising Co. Plaintiff that they will sell them S046 for $90,000.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
Plaintiff believes defendant violated multiple sections of the RCCA:
1. Breach of Contract
(Redmont Civil Code Act)
An informal, implied contract was created by the plaintiff,
(2) A valid contract is formed when the following legal test is met:
(a) Offer. An offer is a clear and unequivocal communication expressing a party's willingness to enter into a contract, either explicitly stated or reasonably inferred from the circumstances.
(b) Acceptance. Acceptance is the positive and unambiguous response to an offer communicated to the offeror, mirroring the terms of the offer and conveyed through various means.
(c) Consideration. Consideration, an essential element, involves the exchange of something of value between parties, with sufficiency though not necessarily adequacy. Consideration can be tangible or intanglbie.
(d) Intent. Parties must demonstrate a clear intention to create legal obligations for the contract to be valid.
(e) Capacity. Parties entering into a contract must possess the legal capacity to do so. Players with low playtime may lack the capacity to fairly enter a contract.

Defendant and Plaintiff’s contracts met all the legal requirements, thus making it a valid legal contract, and defendant failed to fulfil his legal obligations with Plaintiffs, making defendant liable for the damages.

2. Misrepresentation
(Redmont Civil Code Act)
Defendant lied to the plaintiffs, made false statements about ownership of the plot, Both plaintiffs depended on that information to follow through with their transactions, Plaintiff suffered damages when defendant failed to deliver promised plot. Co-Plaintiff suffered damages since purchase of S046 was promised at a discounted price, if Co-Plaintiff were to purchase c525. Plot was purchased but 2nd end of the deal was not made.

3. Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce
(Redmont Civil Code Act)
The defendant’s conduct was unacceptable, Plaintiffs allege, attempts to defraud multiple people with the same scam. A plot is a good, the defendant’s misleading statements caused Co-Plaintiff to believe that he could take ownership of plot S046 if he bought c525, which he did, but S046 was never the defendants to sell. Defendant’s multiple attempts showed guilt and intent.

4. Failure to Deliver Goods or Services
(Redmont Civil Code Act)
Plaintiff was promised S046, even though the defendant never owned a plot, a plot was still promised. Co-Plaintiff was also promised S046, but it was not delivered. Plaintiff alleges damages for not receiving the plot, while defendant had no legal excuse to provide, or to reverse the contract and return the money paid out.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Rescission of $150,000 (In accord to 2. Misrepresentation’s Remedy in the RCCA)
2. $150,000 in Compensatory Damages (In accord to 3. Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce’s Remedy in the RCCA)
2. $100,000 in Punitive Damages.
3. 30% In Legal Fees

Witnesses and Evidence

1. TheFlameEmperor1
2. ItsEgo
3. RavenReap
4. Olisaurus123
5. beleave17
6. Pikaftalysa
7. Plankeeee (@dracula8920)

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 25 day of July 2026

DETECTIVHOLMES · Jul 25, 2026

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
Your Honour,

Plaintiff requests a freeze on the defendant's bank accounts, seeing how his behaviour is repeating and the defendant intends to use the funds he unlawfully obtained from Plaintiffs, Court is requsted to allow this motion to prevent further damage and involvment.

KyrahM · Jul 27, 2026

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO INTERVENE

Your Honour,

I represent poop12345678, who paid the Defendant $100,000 for plot S046 on 26 July. That is the same plot this case is about. I move for my client to be joined to this case as a Co-Plaintiff.

WHAT MY CLIENT'S INTEREST IS

1. On 26 July at 21:01 my client paid PowerCreaper $100,000. The payment shows in the PoyEnterprises transaction log as owner-manual-payout-poop12345678-powercreaper-20260726-100000.

2. Before paying, my client asked the Defendant for his IGN and was told PowerCreaper. My client then pointed out that Olisaurus123 was listed as the owner of S046. The Defendant said Olisaurus123 was only holding the plot so the Defendant would not have to pay levy while bidding, and told my client "Send me SS when you've paid, I'll have him transfer."

3. My client paid and sent the screenshot. He asked for the plot to be transferred. The Defendant said "I can" and then did not.

4. When my client said he would sue, the Defendant said "I have nothing I own nothing, you can't sue a poor man."

WHY MY CLIENT SHOULD BE JOINED

5. Section 6(1)(b) of Part IV of the Redmont Civil Code Act lets the Court order joinder where a party claims an interest in the subject matter such that disposing of the case without them may impair their ability to protect that interest. My client meets that for two reasons.

6. First, this case is about S046. The Plaintiffs are asking for rescission and damages over the sale of that plot. My client paid for the same plot, from the same person, after being told the same thing about Olisaurus123 holding it. If this Court decides who S046 belongs to, or orders it transferred, that decides my client's claim to it as well. He has no way to be heard on that unless he is in the case.

7. Second, the Defendant says he has no assets. The Plaintiffs are asking for $150,000 rescission, $150,000 compensatory, $100,000 punitive, and 30% legal fees. If judgment is entered for anything close to that against someone with nothing, there will be nothing left for my client to collect on afterwards. Being left out of this case is what causes that, not any later case my client might bring.

8. There is also no reason to run two cases over this. Same Defendant, same plot, same conduct, and mostly the same witnesses the Plaintiffs have already listed.

9. This case is still Pending. Discovery has not started and nobody has been summoned. Joining my client now does not delay anything or force any part of the case to be redone.

WHAT MY CLIENT CLAIMS

10. Against the Defendant, for the 26 July transaction:

a. Breach of Contract. There was an offer, acceptance, consideration, intent, and capacity. The Defendant did not perform.

b. Misrepresentation. The Defendant said S046 was his to sell and that Olisaurus123 was holding it for him. My client relied on that and paid $100,000.

c. Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce. This is the same pattern the Plaintiffs plead at Facts 7 to 11.

d. Failure to Deliver Goods or Services. The Defendant took the money, said he could transfer the plot, and did not.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

1. That the Court join poop12345678 to this case as Co-Plaintiff under RCCA Part IV, Section 6(1)(b).

2. That the Court grant leave for this filing, if leave was required.

3. That my client then be allowed to file a full claim seeking rescission of the $100,000, plus whatever further damages the Court thinks appropriate.

4. Any other relief the Court sees fit.

EVIDENCE

The PoyEnterprises transaction log and the Discord exchange between my client and the Defendant are attached.

Proof of representation attached.

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.

Respectfully submitted,
KyrineM_, representing poop12345678

DATED: This 27 day of July 2026

DETECTIVHOLMES · Jul 28, 2026

DETECTIVHOLMES said:
Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

TheFlameEmperor1
Plaintiff

ItsEgo
Co- Plaintiff

v.

PowerCreaper
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
Defendant defrauded the plaintiff by claiming ownership of a plot he does not own, leading to damages of $150,000, The plaintiff lacked ownership of the plot and was unable to deliver it, and refused to return plaintiff’s money, loss of the $150,000 was a significant financial burden on the plaintiff.

I. PARTIES
1. TheFlameEmperor1 (Plaintiff)

2. PowerCreaper (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. On 20 July, defendant contacted plaintiff on discord, offering S-plot, S046 for sale.
2. Plaintiff shows temptation to purchase the plot.
3. Payment of $150,000 is sent.
4. Defendant acknowledges the received payment and is aware of the transfer of funds.
5. Plaintiff contacts defendant asking for the plot to be transferred and defendant acts clueless and denies any sale.
6. Plaintiff promises legal action.
7. 21 July, Defendant attempts same scam on another person (RavenReap), and again offers S046 for sale, Agreed upon $100,000.
8. RavenReap asks for pretransfer of the plot and defendant refuses.
9. Defendant initiates an explicit, legal contract, and RavenReap writes a confirming statement.
10. RavenReap discovers the Plaintiff’s lack of ownership on the plot, and defendant claims he owes the owner $80,000.
11. Olisaurus123 (plot owner) publicly claims that the defendant’s statement is false.
12. PowerCreaper used the funds to buy a plot (c525) from Plankeeee and resold it to ItsEgo for an $63,000, Promising Co. Plaintiff that they will sell them S046 for $90,000.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
Plaintiff believes defendant violated multiple sections of the RCCA:
1. Breach of Contract
(Redmont Civil Code Act)
An informal, implied contract was created by the plaintiff,
(2) A valid contract is formed when the following legal test is met:
(a) Offer. An offer is a clear and unequivocal communication expressing a party's willingness to enter into a contract, either explicitly stated or reasonably inferred from the circumstances.
(b) Acceptance. Acceptance is the positive and unambiguous response to an offer communicated to the offeror, mirroring the terms of the offer and conveyed through various means.
(c) Consideration. Consideration, an essential element, involves the exchange of something of value between parties, with sufficiency though not necessarily adequacy. Consideration can be tangible or intanglbie.
(d) Intent. Parties must demonstrate a clear intention to create legal obligations for the contract to be valid.
(e) Capacity. Parties entering into a contract must possess the legal capacity to do so. Players with low playtime may lack the capacity to fairly enter a contract.

Defendant and Plaintiff’s contracts met all the legal requirements, thus making it a valid legal contract, and defendant failed to fulfil his legal obligations with Plaintiffs, making defendant liable for the damages.

2. Misrepresentation
(Redmont Civil Code Act)
Defendant lied to the plaintiffs, made false statements about ownership of the plot, Both plaintiffs depended on that information to follow through with their transactions, Plaintiff suffered damages when defendant failed to deliver promised plot. Co-Plaintiff suffered damages since purchase of S046 was promised at a discounted price, if Co-Plaintiff were to purchase c525. Plot was purchased but 2nd end of the deal was not made.

3. Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce
(Redmont Civil Code Act)
The defendant’s conduct was unacceptable, Plaintiffs allege, attempts to defraud multiple people with the same scam. A plot is a good, the defendant’s misleading statements caused Co-Plaintiff to believe that he could take ownership of plot S046 if he bought c525, which he did, but S046 was never the defendants to sell. Defendant’s multiple attempts showed guilt and intent.

4. Failure to Deliver Goods or Services
(Redmont Civil Code Act)
Plaintiff was promised S046, even though the defendant never owned a plot, a plot was still promised. Co-Plaintiff was also promised S046, but it was not delivered. Plaintiff alleges damages for not receiving the plot, while defendant had no legal excuse to provide, or to reverse the contract and return the money paid out.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Rescission of $150,000 (In accord to 2. Misrepresentation’s Remedy in the RCCA)
2. $150,000 in Compensatory Damages (In accord to 3. Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce’s Remedy in the RCCA)
2. $100,000 in Punitive Damages.
3. 30% In Legal Fees

Witnesses and Evidence

View attachment 92060

View attachment 92061

View attachment 92062

View attachment 92063

View attachment 92064

View attachment 92065

View attachment 92066

View attachment 92067

View attachment 92068

View attachment 92069

View attachment 92070

View attachment 92071

View attachment 92072

View attachment 92073

View attachment 92074

View attachment 92075

View attachment 92076

View attachment 92077

View attachment 92078

View attachment 92079

View attachment 92080

View attachment 92081

View attachment 92082

View attachment 92083

View attachment 92084

View attachment 92085

View attachment 92086

View attachment 92087

1. TheFlameEmperor1
2. ItsEgo
3. RavenReap
4. Olisaurus123
5. beleave17
6. Pikaftalysa
7. Plankeeee (@dracula8920)

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 25 day of July 2026

Plaintiff is quite forgetful and has committed the heinous mistake of not attatching their proof of representation, please overlook this.

Fluffyjumperfive · Aug 15, 2026

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
MOTION TO INTERVENE

asdertplays (Represented by Theory, Talion & Partners Inc.)
Movant
v.

PowerCreaper
Defendant

Theory, Talion & Partners requests that their client, asdertplays, be enjoined to this case because the facts and claims in this case is similar to their client's.

Theory, Talion & Partners politely requests that this Court grant this Motion to Intervene and permit its client, asdertplays, to be enjoined to this case as co-plaintiff.

Respectfully submitted,
-Fluffyjumperfive

ko531 · Saturday at 12:22 AM

The court will be consolidating this case and [2026] FCR 78. Both cases are against the same defendant under similar claims.

Fluffyjumperfive said:
Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
MOTION TO INTERVENE

asdertplays (Represented by Theory, Talion & Partners Inc.)
Movant
v.

PowerCreaper
Defendant

Theory, Talion & Partners requests that their client, asdertplays, be enjoined to this case because the facts and claims in this case is similar to their client's.

Theory, Talion & Partners politely requests that this Court grant this Motion to Intervene and permit its client, asdertplays, to be enjoined to this case as co-plaintiff.

Respectfully submitted,
-Fluffyjumperfive

Motion to Intervene Granted. Please provide your complaint in the next 72 hours.

ko531 · Saturday at 12:29 AM

Writ of Summons

@powercreaper @Dinnerbone4995 @TheREALWINner are hereby summonsed to the Federal Court for the case TheFlameEmperor1, et al. v. Powercreaper [2026] FCR 66

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.

TheREALWINner · Saturday at 7:59 AM

Your Honor,
As requested, the complaint from Dinnerbone4995 v. PowerCreaper [2026] FCR 78 is presented to be joined to this case instead.

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Dinnerbone4995

Plaintiff

v.

PowerCreaper

Defendant

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

I was messaged with a beautiful empty commercial plot ready for offer to me[.] I quickly paid of course being safe with screenshots[.] [T]hen I got no reply and no transfer[.] I saw how the money vanished and I [realized] I'd gotten clearly scammed[.] [W]e gave him 24 hours['] notice yet to no response after he stated please wait[,] I'll get my attorney in contact with you[.]

I. PARTIES

1. Dinnerbone4995

2. PowerCreaper

II. FACTS

1. On August 12, 2026, the Plaintiff in this case, Dinnerbone4995, was sent a direct message via the messaging app Discord from MegaKnite666 a.k.a. PowerCreaper, stating that he had property c-525 and that he was willing to sell it for $75,000 to the Plaintiff. (See P-029)

2. The Plaintiff, excited to purchase the property, proceeded to offer $70,000 to buy the plot from PowerCreaper. (See P-029 and P-030)

3. PowerCreaper responds to these messages to clarify the terms of sale, namely, whether the sale would be cash or via a loan. (See P-030)

4. The Plaintiff disclosed that the offer would be cash by stating “70k rn.” (See P-029 and P-030)

5. PowerCreaper agreed to these terms by stating “Ok done” and “Send me the Ss when you’ve sent the money.” (See P-030 and P-031)

6. The Plaintiff then proceeds to send said money into the account of PowerCreaper. (See P-031)

7. The Defendant acknowledged that the funds were received by stating “Ok.” (See P-031)

8. At this point, the Defendant failed to respond to the inquiries of Dinnerbone4995, for as of the time of this case filing, PowerCreaper has neither transferred this property nor returned the money to the defendant. (See P-032 in conjunction with P-035, P-036, and P-037)

9. Between the time of this incident and the time of this case filing, the Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to contact PowerCreaper to seek either the return of the Plantiff’s funds in full or to complete the transferal of property c-525 to the Plaintiff, with a deadline to respond within 24 hours. (See P-033)

10. The Defendant responded with a .gif and then stated that the Defendant’s counsel would be in touch with the Plaintiff’s counsel about this issue and that the counsel of the Plaintiff should no longer proceed to contact the Defendant directly. (See P-034)

11. At the time of the filing of this case, the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s counsel, nor the legal firm of the plaintiff’s council received any communication from the Defendant’s counsel. (See P-035 and P-036)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Due to the lack of response from the Defendant or the Defendant’s counsel, the Plaintiff makes the following claim for relief:

1. Conversion (RCCA PART VII §7)

Conversion is committed when the following legal tests are met:

(a) wrongfully takes, obtains, or withholds property from an owner;

and

(b) intends to deprive the owner of the property or to appropriate it to themselves or a third party;

and

(c) the wrongful taking, obtaining, or withholding is committed by:

(v) obtaining property by false promise pursuant to a scheme to defraud.

The evidence of this case clearly shows that the defendant acted with the purpose of causing harm or with substantial certainty that harm would result from their conduct in the following way:

On the test of (a), the facts clearly show that the Defendant has both wrongfully obtained and withheld property from the rightful owner Dinnerbone4995. The Defendant deceived the Plaintiff into sending money to the Defendant, fulfilling the requirements of the wrongful obtaining of funds/property. This was done under the pretense that the Plaintiff would receive lot c-525, which as shown by the facts has not been transferred at the time of this filing. This thereby fulfills the requirements of the wrongful withholding of property.

On the test of (b), the facts clearly show that the Defendant has intent to appropriate the stolen money to himself or others, as the Defendant has refused to respond to the Plaintiff’s inquires about the property and has furthermore shown no sign of any attempt to restore the funds nor transfer the property to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the facts clearly fulfill the second test.

Finally, on the test of (c), the facts show once again that the Defendant has obtained this money with a false promise pursuant to a scheme to defraud, for the Defendant promised to transfer the property after receiving $70,000 in payment, received said payment, acknowledged receiving said payment, yet nevertheless failed to transfer the property in question or offer any explanation to the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s counsel as to why the property has not been transferred as of the time of this case filing. Therefore, the Defendant has not kept his word and has thereby made a false promise, fulfilling the requirements of this test.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. $210,000 in Treble Damages pursuant to RCCA Part III § 8 and the RCCA Part VII § 7.

2. $63,000 in legal fees pursuant to RCCA Part III § 7.

3. Any further punishment this court deems reasonable in this matter.

Defendant: "Hi"
Defendant: "I have C525"
SCREENSHOT OF PROPERTY
Defendant: "@Dinnerbone I'm looking to get 75k"
Plaintiff:"OOOH"
Plaintiff: "@MegaKnite666"
Plaintiff: "@MegaKnite666"
Plaintiff: "@MegaKnite666 @MegaKnite666"
Plaintiff: "hey"
Plaintiff: "I'd like it for 70k!"
Plaintiff: "hellloooo?"
Defendant: "Hi hi"
Defendant: "70k right now? Or do you need a loan"
Plaintiff: "70k rn"

Defendant: "@Dinnerbone I'm looking to get 75k"
Plaintiff:"OOOH"
Plaintiff: "@MegaKnite666"
Plaintiff: "@MegaKnite666"
Plaintiff: "@MegaKnite666 @MegaKnite666"
Plaintiff: "hey"
Plaintiff: "I'd like it for 70k!"
Plaintiff: "hellloooo?"
Defendant: "Hi hi"
Defendant: "70k right now? Or do you need a loan"
Plaintiff: "70k rn"
Defendant: "Ok done"

Plaintiff: "BET"
Plaintiff: "hop on"
Plaintiff: "meet there"
Defendant: "With my mom rn, I'll transfer it from Commands server"
Defendant: Send me the Ss when you've sent the money
Plaintiff: "bet"
Defendant: "What's your IGN?"
Plaintiff: "dinnerbone4995"
SCREENSHOT READS: "Treasury >> Paid PowerCreaper $70,000.00"
Plaintiff: "done"
Defendant: "Ok"

Defendant: Send me the Ss when you've sent the money
Plaintiff: "bet"
Defendant: "What's your IGN?"
Plaintiff: "dinnerbone4995"
SCREENSHOT READS: "Treasury >> Paid PowerCreaper $70,000.00"
Plaintiff: "done"
Defendant: "Ok"
Plaintiff: "dinnerbone4995"
Plaintiff: "transfer hellooooooo? @MegaKnite666"
Plaintiff: "hey wtf"
Plaintiff: "this isnt it"
SCREENSHOT OF PROPERTY c-525
Plaintiff: "but its built so thats fine"

LETTER TRANSCRIPT:
To: PowerCreaper A.K.A. MegaKnite666
From: The Law Offices of SingeHeart, Addams & Associates

Good evening. My name is Jacob Wolfe, aka SniperElite508. I am sending this letter on behalf of my client, Dinnerbone4955. Dinnerbone4955 has approached us with the intent to file charges against you for the following infractions committed on August 10, 2026 in the Minecraft server, Democracy Craft:

One (1) count of Conversion.

Dinnerbone4955 has presented adequate evidence to file said charges including but not limited to:

Discord Messages showing proof of contract.
Screenshots showing in-game proof of payment.
Screenshots showing lack of response to Dinnerbone4995’s inquiries about the property after payment was sent.

This charge is a fileable offense according to the Criminal Code Act of Redmont and, should the courts punish you to the fullest extent of my client’s demands, would result in the following fines:

$210,000 in Treble Damages for Conversion pursuant to the Redmont Civil Code Act.
$63,000 in legal fees pursuant to the Redmont Civil Code Act.

However, my client is willing to drop charges should you wish to avoid going to court. Should you wish to pursue this path, he would be willing to refrain from filing on the following grounds:

The complete return of the paid $70,000 in full to player Dinnerbone4995 OR,
Proof of transferal of property c525 as discussed in the original contract to player Dinnerbone4995.

Upon delivery of this official notice, you will have 24 hours to respond. Should we not receive a response within this time frame, we will assume you have rejected this offer and will proceed to file charges against you. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Regards,
• Jacob Wolfe, aka SniperElite508
• The Law Offices of SingeHeart, Addams & Associates

[Dated 8/11/26, 5:04 PM EST]
.gif
Defendant: "My attorney will contact you please refrain from further contact with me directly. THANK YOUUUU

Additional screenshot shows that no new messages have been sent to the Plaintiff as of 12:33 PM UTC/GMT 8/13/2026 or 7:33 AM EST 8/13/2026.

Transcript:

[Dated 11/08/2026, 18:17 UTC/GMT]
Plaintiff: "dinnerbone4995"
Plaintiff: "transfer hellooooooo? @MegaKnite666"
Plaintiff: "hey wtf"
Plaintiff: "this isnt it"
SCREENSHOT OF PROPERTY c-525
Plaintiff: "but its built so thats fine"
Plaintiff: "@MegaKnite666"
Plaintiff: "you reliase I know you ign"
Plaintiff: "And even if you transfer out of the account"
Plaintiff: "They can still view /transactions"
Plaintiff: "and figure"

[Dated 11/13/2026, 12:33 UTC/GMT]
Plaintiff: "this is the time of screenshot being taken."

Last message sent to the Plaintiff's council was on 8/11/2026 at 5:04 PM with the following:

Defendant: "My attorney will contact you please refrain from further contact with me directly. THANK YOUUUU"

Bottom right corner as well as scroll bar at the bottom show that there are no new messages from the Defendant as of the time of this filing.

Screenshot showing that as of 9:09 AM EST on 8/13/2026, player Dinnerbone4995 has not received property c-525 into his owned regions.
Transcript:
"Realty >> Regions for Dinnerbone4995"
"Owned:"
">> r112"
"Rented:"
">> originstall10 (21d 24m 3s)"
">> originstall6 (80d 6h 39m 50s)"
">> originstall3 (80d 6h 36m 41s)"
">> originstall4 (80d 6h 36m 55s)"
">> Eclipse-AP-45 (125d 3h 47m 14s)"
"Page 1 of 1"

Proof of Retention of Counsel

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 29th day of August 2026

DETECTIVHOLMES · Saturday at 8:55 AM

Motion

MOTION TO COMPEL

Plaintiff would like to submit the following evidence and notify the court that the defendant has been permanently deported for alting.
Plaintiff requests the court to summon staff, and for them to come forward and:
1. Reveal the identities of all suspected alt accounts.
2. Present ALL financial transactions between the accounts.
3. Present all major financial transactions for all the suspected accounts.

The plaintiff requests this motion to be granted, as a similar one had been granted before in Multiman et al v. slapout, this would also make it easier for the Commonwealth to trace exactly where the defendant's funds went, and how to retrieve them.

CreeperTD · Saturday at 3:12 PM

This is posted on behalf of @Fluffyjumperfive, who wrote this filing.

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

asdertplays (Represented by Theory, Talion & Partners Inc.)
Plaintiff

v.

PowerCreaper
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a contract over the property C525. Both parties agreed that the Plaintiff would pay $60,000 and the Defendant would give him the C525 plot. However, the Defendant breached this contract and did not provide the Plaintiff with this plot, and never even had access to the plot to begin with. Therefore, the Plaintiff lost the entire $60,0000 that he paid and got nothing in return, as the Defendant stopped responding to any of the Plaintiff’s DMs. This was a major financial burden on the Plaintiff.

I. PARTIES

asdertplays (Plaintiff)
PowerCreaper (Defendant)

II. FACTS

On the 28th of July 2026, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff on discord and offered the commercial plot C525 for $70,000. (P-T003)
Both parties negotiated the price of the property down to $60,000. (P-T002)
The Plaintiff questioned the ownership of C525, as the reality plugin said Lolyeatbro owned the property. In response, the Defendant lied and said Lolyeatbro was holding on to the property for them. (P-T002)
An agreement was formed between the Defendant and the Plaintiff, where the Plaintiff would pay $60,000 for the C525 plot. (P-T002 & P-T003)
After the Plaintiff sent the $60,000 payment and provided proof of it, the Defendant stopped responding to any direct messages from the Plaintiff. (P-T002 & P-T001)
The Defendant never provided the C525 plot, and never gave the money back to the Plaintiff. (P-T001)
On 1 August 2026, Plaintiff requested their money be returned if Defendant refuses to answer, but the Defendant did not respond. (P-T001)
The Defendant lied about the contract and breached it, and profited $60,000.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Breach of Contract (RCCA Part VI §1)
RCCA Part VI §1 defines Breach of Contract as when an individual fails “to perform obligations under a valid and enforceable contract without lawful excuse.” Pursuant to the Contracts Act, a contract must have an offer, acceptance, consideration, intent, and capacity.

Offer. The Defendant made a clear offer to the Plaintiff when they stated “I got C525 , it’s empty you can do what ever you want in it” and “If you can pay me today I’ll do 60 why not” (P-T002, P-T003).
Acceptance. Plaintiff accepted the Defendant’s offer and openly entered the contract when he said “Ok sounds good” and sent a screenshot of him paying the Defendant $60,000 (P-T002).
Consideration. Consideration is shown through the $60,000 Plaintiff sent to the Defendant, and the Defendant’s offer to give Plaintiff the C525 plot in exchange.
Intent. The Plaintiff and Defendant showed clear intent throughout their entire dialog, through the Defendant’s offer of C525 and the Plaintiff’s payment of $60,000 (P-T002, P-T003).
Capacity. The Defendant has been on the server since 2024 with over 4 days of playtime. They had the full legal capacity to enter into this contract (P-T004).

A clear contract was formed. The Defendant then breached this contract, after they failed to transfer the C525 plot to Plaintiff after multiple days (P-T001).

2. Failure to Deliver Goods or Services (RCCA Part VI §4)
RCCA Part VI §4 defines Failure to Deliver Goods or Services as occuring when one fails “without lawful excuse to deliver goods or services that they have agreed to supply under a valid transaction or contract.” As noted earlier in the filing, the Plaintiff and Defendant entered a lawful contract where the Defendant would give the Plaintiff the C525 plot. The Defendant then failed to deliver this plot, and did not respond to any of the requests to deliver by the Plaintiff (P-T001). This constitutes Failure to Deliver Goods or Services, as C525 was not supplied under the contract both parties made.
3. Misrepresentation RCCA Part VI §2
RCCA Part VI §2 states that an individual commits Misrepresentation when they:

(a) [make] a false statement of fact; and
(b) the statement induces another party to enter into a contract; and
(c) the other party suffers loss as a result.

The Defendant's claim that they were able to provide plot C525 to the Plaintiff was a false statement of fact that led directly to the Plaintiff entering the contract, which the Defendant never had any intention of fulfilling.
4. Unjust Enrichment(RCCA Part X §1)
A person commits a violation if the person:
(a) obtains and retains a benefit at another’s expense; and
(b) there is no legal justification for retaining the benefit.
The Defendant benefited $60,000 that was gained contrary to the rule of law via Breach of Contract.
5. Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce (RCCA Part VI §4)
A person commits a violation if the person:
(a) engages in conduct that is misleading, deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive another person in connection with the promotion, sale, or supply of goods or services.
This violation shall not occur where:
(b) the conduct constitutes puffery (obvious exaggeration); or
(c) the plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care in relying on the conduct.
The Defendant misled the Plaintiff into believing that they intended to sell C525.

6. Punitive Damages (RCCA Part III §3)
The Defendant has demonstrated outrageous conduct in multiple ways. For one, they quite clearly "acted knowing that their conduct was likely to disadvantage, harm, or seriously inconvenience another person," given that they lied to Plaintiff about being holding a property in order to engage in a real estate deal. This easily extends to subsections (i), (iii), and (iv) of the definition of outrageous conduct as well, as the Defendant made the initial offer for the contract with the intent to deceive Plaintiff into believing that they were going to get a property transferred to them at the conclusion of the deal, they knew at the beginning that they were going to cause a financial loss to Plaintiff, and, as illustrated by the other parties to this suit, has acted in reckless disregard to the harm which they caused. Finally, to quote subsection (v), "The defendant engaged in persistent or repeated misconduct, or failed to change their conduct after becoming aware of its consequences." The other parties to this case illustrate this point more clearly than words can describe.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

Rescission of $60,000 (In accord to 3. Misrepresentation’s Remedy in the RCCA) OR
$60,000 in compensatory damages
$50,000 in punitive damages due to the defendant’s outrageous conduct
Up to 450 Civil Penalty Units (RCCA Part VI §4)
Legal fees amounting to 30% of the total damages awarded, payable to Theory, Talion & Partners Inc.

Total Primary Claim: $110,000 plus up to 450 Civil Penalty Units (amounting to $54000) plus up to $49200 in legal fees.

V. EVIDENCE

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 29th day of August 2026

CreeperTD · Saturday at 3:57 PM

CreeperTD said:
This is posted on behalf of @Fluffyjumperfive, who wrote this filing.

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

asdertplays (Represented by Theory, Talion & Partners Inc.)
Plaintiff

v.

PowerCreaper
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

I. PARTIES

asdertplays (Plaintiff)

PowerCreaper (Defendant)

II. FACTS

On the 28th of July 2026, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff on discord and offered the commercial plot C525 for $70,000. (P-T003)

Both parties negotiated the price of the property down to $60,000. (P-T002)

The Plaintiff questioned the ownership of C525, as the reality plugin said Lolyeatbro owned the property. In response, the Defendant lied and said Lolyeatbro was holding on to the property for them. (P-T002)

An agreement was formed between the Defendant and the Plaintiff, where the Plaintiff would pay $60,000 for the C525 plot. (P-T002 & P-T003)

After the Plaintiff sent the $60,000 payment and provided proof of it, the Defendant stopped responding to any direct messages from the Plaintiff. (P-T002 & P-T001)

The Defendant never provided the C525 plot, and never gave the money back to the Plaintiff. (P-T001)

On 1 August 2026, Plaintiff requested their money be returned if Defendant refuses to answer, but the Defendant did not respond. (P-T001)

The Defendant lied about the contract and breached it, and profited $60,000.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Breach of Contract (RCCA Part VI §1)
RCCA Part VI §1 defines Breach of Contract as when an individual fails “to perform obligations under a valid and enforceable contract without lawful excuse.” Pursuant to the Contracts Act, a contract must have an offer, acceptance, consideration, intent, and capacity.

Offer. The Defendant made a clear offer to the Plaintiff when they stated “I got C525 , it’s empty you can do what ever you want in it” and “If you can pay me today I’ll do 60 why not” (P-T002, P-T003).

Acceptance. Plaintiff accepted the Defendant’s offer and openly entered the contract when he said “Ok sounds good” and sent a screenshot of him paying the Defendant $60,000 (P-T002).

Consideration. Consideration is shown through the $60,000 Plaintiff sent to the Defendant, and the Defendant’s offer to give Plaintiff the C525 plot in exchange.

Intent. The Plaintiff and Defendant showed clear intent throughout their entire dialog, through the Defendant’s offer of C525 and the Plaintiff’s payment of $60,000 (P-T002, P-T003).

Capacity. The Defendant has been on the server since 2024 with over 4 days of playtime. They had the full legal capacity to enter into this contract (P-T004).

A clear contract was formed. The Defendant then breached this contract, after they failed to transfer the C525 plot to Plaintiff after multiple days (P-T001).

2. Failure to Deliver Goods or Services (RCCA Part VI §4)
RCCA Part VI §4 defines Failure to Deliver Goods or Services as occuring when one fails “without lawful excuse to deliver goods or services that they have agreed to supply under a valid transaction or contract.” As noted earlier in the filing, the Plaintiff and Defendant entered a lawful contract where the Defendant would give the Plaintiff the C525 plot. The Defendant then failed to deliver this plot, and did not respond to any of the requests to deliver by the Plaintiff (P-T001). This constitutes Failure to Deliver Goods or Services, as C525 was not supplied under the contract both parties made.
3. Misrepresentation RCCA Part VI §2
RCCA Part VI §2 states that an individual commits Misrepresentation when they:

The Defendant's claim that they were able to provide plot C525 to the Plaintiff was a false statement of fact that led directly to the Plaintiff entering the contract, which the Defendant never had any intention of fulfilling.
4. Unjust Enrichment(RCCA Part X §1)
A person commits a violation if the person:
(a) obtains and retains a benefit at another’s expense; and
(b) there is no legal justification for retaining the benefit.
The Defendant benefited $60,000 that was gained contrary to the rule of law via Breach of Contract.
5. Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce (RCCA Part VI §4)
A person commits a violation if the person:
(a) engages in conduct that is misleading, deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive another person in connection with the promotion, sale, or supply of goods or services.
This violation shall not occur where:
(b) the conduct constitutes puffery (obvious exaggeration); or
(c) the plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care in relying on the conduct.
The Defendant misled the Plaintiff into believing that they intended to sell C525.

6. Punitive Damages (RCCA Part III §3)
The Defendant has demonstrated outrageous conduct in multiple ways. For one, they quite clearly "acted knowing that their conduct was likely to disadvantage, harm, or seriously inconvenience another person," given that they lied to Plaintiff about being holding a property in order to engage in a real estate deal. This easily extends to subsections (i), (iii), and (iv) of the definition of outrageous conduct as well, as the Defendant made the initial offer for the contract with the intent to deceive Plaintiff into believing that they were going to get a property transferred to them at the conclusion of the deal, they knew at the beginning that they were going to cause a financial loss to Plaintiff, and, as illustrated by the other parties to this suit, has acted in reckless disregard to the harm which they caused. Finally, to quote subsection (v), "The defendant engaged in persistent or repeated misconduct, or failed to change their conduct after becoming aware of its consequences." The other parties to this case illustrate this point more clearly than words can describe.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

Rescission of $60,000 (In accord to 3. Misrepresentation’s Remedy in the RCCA) OR

$60,000 in compensatory damages

$50,000 in punitive damages due to the defendant’s outrageous conduct

Up to 450 Civil Penalty Units (RCCA Part VI §4)

Legal fees amounting to 30% of the total damages awarded, payable to Theory, Talion & Partners Inc.

Total Primary Claim: $110,000 plus up to 450 Civil Penalty Units (amounting to $54000) plus up to $49200 in legal fees.

V. EVIDENCE

View attachment 97352

View attachment 97353

View attachment 97354

View attachment 97355

View attachment 97350

View attachment 97351

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 29th day of August 2026

Edited to fix evidence being improperly attached.

greymc · Saturday at 4:01 PM

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

Your Honor,

The Defendant is currently permanently deported, as seen in P-039. As UnityMaster v. lcn [2025] SCR 2 decided, long deported players do not have a right to representation in the Courts. Therefore, in line with Rule 3.6.1, Co-Plaintiff requests an inquest proceeding.

Respectfully submitted,
_GreyMC
Theory, Talion & Partners

ko531 · Saturday at 9:32 PM

KyrahM said:
Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO INTERVENE

Your Honour,

I represent poop12345678, who paid the Defendant $100,000 for plot S046 on 26 July. That is the same plot this case is about. I move for my client to be joined to this case as a Co-Plaintiff.

WHAT MY CLIENT'S INTEREST IS

1. On 26 July at 21:01 my client paid PowerCreaper $100,000. The payment shows in the PoyEnterprises transaction log as owner-manual-payout-poop12345678-powercreaper-20260726-100000.

2. Before paying, my client asked the Defendant for his IGN and was told PowerCreaper. My client then pointed out that Olisaurus123 was listed as the owner of S046. The Defendant said Olisaurus123 was only holding the plot so the Defendant would not have to pay levy while bidding, and told my client "Send me SS when you've paid, I'll have him transfer."

3. My client paid and sent the screenshot. He asked for the plot to be transferred. The Defendant said "I can" and then did not.

4. When my client said he would sue, the Defendant said "I have nothing I own nothing, you can't sue a poor man."

WHY MY CLIENT SHOULD BE JOINED

5. Section 6(1)(b) of Part IV of the Redmont Civil Code Act lets the Court order joinder where a party claims an interest in the subject matter such that disposing of the case without them may impair their ability to protect that interest. My client meets that for two reasons.

6. First, this case is about S046. The Plaintiffs are asking for rescission and damages over the sale of that plot. My client paid for the same plot, from the same person, after being told the same thing about Olisaurus123 holding it. If this Court decides who S046 belongs to, or orders it transferred, that decides my client's claim to it as well. He has no way to be heard on that unless he is in the case.

7. Second, the Defendant says he has no assets. The Plaintiffs are asking for $150,000 rescission, $150,000 compensatory, $100,000 punitive, and 30% legal fees. If judgment is entered for anything close to that against someone with nothing, there will be nothing left for my client to collect on afterwards. Being left out of this case is what causes that, not any later case my client might bring.

8. There is also no reason to run two cases over this. Same Defendant, same plot, same conduct, and mostly the same witnesses the Plaintiffs have already listed.

9. This case is still Pending. Discovery has not started and nobody has been summoned. Joining my client now does not delay anything or force any part of the case to be redone.

WHAT MY CLIENT CLAIMS

10. Against the Defendant, for the 26 July transaction:

a. Breach of Contract. There was an offer, acceptance, consideration, intent, and capacity. The Defendant did not perform.

b. Misrepresentation. The Defendant said S046 was his to sell and that Olisaurus123 was holding it for him. My client relied on that and paid $100,000.

c. Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce. This is the same pattern the Plaintiffs plead at Facts 7 to 11.

d. Failure to Deliver Goods or Services. The Defendant took the money, said he could transfer the plot, and did not.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

1. That the Court join poop12345678 to this case as Co-Plaintiff under RCCA Part IV, Section 6(1)(b).

2. That the Court grant leave for this filing, if leave was required.

3. That my client then be allowed to file a full claim seeking rescission of the $100,000, plus whatever further damages the Court thinks appropriate.

4. Any other relief the Court sees fit.

EVIDENCE

The PoyEnterprises transaction log and the Discord exchange between my client and the Defendant are attached.

Proof of representation attached.

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.

Respectfully submitted,
KyrineM_, representing poop12345678

DATED: This 27 day of July 2026

View attachment 92397

View attachment 92396

View attachment 92395

View attachment 92394

I missed this motion last night. This motion to intervene is granted. Please post your complaint in the next 72 hours.

DETECTIVHOLMES said:
Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
Your Honour,

Plaintiff requests a freeze on the defendant's bank accounts, seeing how his behaviour is repeating and the defendant intends to use the funds he unlawfully obtained from Plaintiffs, Court is requsted to allow this motion to prevent further damage and involvment.

Emergency Injunction will be granted. Powercreaper's accounts will be frozen and the order will be updated once we discover the alts.

DETECTIVHOLMES said:
Motion

MOTION TO COMPEL

Plaintiff would like to submit the following evidence and notify the court that the defendant has been permanently deported for alting.
Plaintiff requests the court to summon staff, and for them to come forward and:
1. Reveal the identities of all suspected alt accounts.
2. Present ALL financial transactions between the accounts.
3. Present all major financial transactions for all the suspected accounts.

The plaintiff requests this motion to be granted, as a similar one had been granted before in Multiman et al v. slapout, this would also make it easier for the Commonwealth to trace exactly where the defendant's funds went, and how to retrieve them.

View attachment 97245

Motion to Compel will be granted with a modification. As the earliest act between all complaints is July 20th, the transactions will be limited to Jul 20th at the earliest. I will open tickets with Staff and the DOC and come back with the evidence.

greymc · Saturday at 10:25 PM

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff also requests the Court to summon staff to present the transaction history of the following accounts:
1. PowerCreaper
2. nicolaj_tho
3. Suriel08

The first two individuals have paid over $300,000 each to Suriel08, who now also has $0. The Plaintiff believes this is where the money from PowerCreaper has gone from his alleged scams. The evidence to support this has been attached and submitted to the Court.

Respectfully submitted,
_GreyMC
Theory, Talion & Partners

ko531 · Saturday at 10:43 PM

greymc said:
Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff also requests the Court to summon staff to present the transaction history of the following accounts:
1. PowerCreaper
2. nicolaj_tho
3. Suriel08

The first two individuals have paid over $300,000 each to Suriel08, who now also has $0. The Plaintiff believes this is where the money from PowerCreaper has gone from his alleged scams. The evidence to support this has been attached and submitted to the Court.

View attachment 97379

View attachment 97380

View attachment 97382

View attachment 97383

Respectfully submitted,
_GreyMC
Theory, Talion & Partners

This motion is, in substance is already granted. The court has just received information from staff that the following individuals are alts of PowerCreaper:
BeLeave17
Suriel08
nicolaj_tho
ThatJacobKid

DETECTIVHOLMES said:
Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
Your Honour,

Plaintiff requests a freeze on the defendant's bank accounts, seeing how his behaviour is repeating and the defendant intends to use the funds he unlawfully obtained from Plaintiffs, Court is requsted to allow this motion to prevent further damage and involvment.

This Emergency Injunction will be extended to all the individuals listed above.

greymc · Saturday at 10:50 PM

Your Honor,

Does the emergency injunction pertain to the balances, plots, inventory, ender chest, and supporter chests of each account? The current one only says bank accounts.

ko531 · Saturday at 11:03 PM

greymc said:
Your Honor,

Does the emergency injunction pertain to the balances, plots, inventory, ender chest, and supporter chests of each account? The current one only says bank accounts.

The DHS has been told to seize balances and property.

Lawsuit: Pending TheFlameEmperor1, et al. v. PowerCreaper [2026] FCR 66

Special Grade Larper

Case Filing

Attachments

Special Grade Larper

Motion

Citizen

Motion

Special Grade Larper

Case Filing

Citizen

Motion

Citizen

Motion

Citizen

Writ of Summons

Citizen

Case Filing

Special Grade Larper

Motion

Citizen

Case Filing

Citizen

Case Filing

Citizen

Motion

Citizen

Motion

Motion

Motion

Citizen

Motion

Attachments

Citizen

Motion

Motion

Citizen

Citizen

Welcome to Democracycraft!