Lawsuit: In Session TuffCapital v. RazCreative [2026] FCR 70

[TuliTukka]

Case Filing​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
TuffCapital

Plaintiff

v.

RazCreative

Defendant


COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

I, Bloatmaxxer, was robbed of my rightful profit by Raz0Baz0 after they entered into a legally binding contract with my firm, TuffCapital, and proceeded to breach it.


I. PARTIES

1. TuffCapital (Plaintiff), represented by Represented by Tulitukka and xVoltrix as co-counsel, on behalf of Blackstone Law Group

2. Bloatmaxxer, aka ol.iv.er aka tuffcapital, a representative of TuffCapital, represented by Blackstone Law Group

3. RazCreative, (“the Company”)

4. Raz0Baz0, (Defendant) aka Silly Billy aka sillybillllllly aka Razputin Bazputin, the CEO of RazCreative at the time of discovery


II. FACTS

1. Raz0Baz0 seeked a contract with TuffCapital to fund the start up of the Company. (P-001)

2. Both TuffCapital and Raz0Baz0 on behalf of RazCreative agreed to a contract regarding capital investment. (P-002)

3. The Contract stipulates that TuffCapital would issue a 5000 DCC capital investment to RazCreative. (P-003)

4. The Contract stipulates that TuffCapital would issue a 800 DCC capital investment to RazCreative to be used by Raz0Baz0 to rent the plot cbd028 for 28 days. (P-003)

5. The Contract stipulates that Raz0Baz0 would receive the leasing rights to cbd028. (P-003)

6. The leasing rights were valued at 2000 DCC in the contract. (P-003)

7. At the time of signing, RazCreative was valued at 26,000 DCC. (P-003)

8. The investment made by TuffCapital into RazCreative would have amounted to a 30% equity in the company. (P-003)

9. It was agreed in a Discord chat between Raz0Baz0 and TuffCapital that TuffCapital would receive 30% of all profits of RazCreative. (P-003)

10. The plaintiff has made multiple attempts to resolve this without court intervention.

11. The balance of RazCreative at the time of filing was 30.15 DCC. (P-004)

12. The balance of Raz0Baz0 was at the time of filing 247,225.33 DCC. (P-005)

13. RazCreative has disclosed sales amounting to 96,000 DCC. (P-006, P-007, P-008, P-009)

14. RazCreative was contractually obligated to disclose all sales to TuffCapital in the ticket. (P-003)

15. RazCreative or Raz0Baz0 on behalf of it did not disclose all sales without being asked by TuffCapital to do so. (P-010)

16. Raz0Baz0 on behalf of RazCreative agreed in the contract to maintain a balance of 800 DCC to cover one (1) month’s rent of cbd028. (P-003)

17. RazCreative or Raz0Baz0 has not paid anything to TuffCapital.

18. TuffCapital has suffered significant financial losses due to Raz0Baz0 breaching the contract agreed to by both parties.

19. RazCreative was contractually obligated to keep one (1) month’s rent in the balance and failed to do so, causing the plaintiff to lose the plot to the Government of Redmont.

20. Due to the balances stated in facts 11, 12 and 13, it is most likely true that the profits made from artwork sales or other business activities conducted by RazCreative were credited to Raz0Baz0’s personal bank account.

21. The losses caused by Raz0Baz0 depriving TuffCapital of their rightfully earned profits could have yielded a profit of 3.5% if invested in a financial institution.


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. The Defendant outrageously breached the contract agreed to by TuffCapital and RazCreative by not disclosing all sales without being prompted by the Plaintiff. This constitutes a breach of the Civil Code Act Part VI Statute 1. The Plaintiff had to make significant efforts to get the Defendant to report the sales.

2. The Defendant outrageously breached the contract agreed to by TuffCapital and RazCreative by not sending 30% of the profits made by RazCreative to TuffCapital. This constitutes a breach of the Civil Code Act Part VI Statute 1. The Plaintiff has tried multiple times to reconcile with the Defendant and recover lost profits.

3. The Defendant outrageously neglected paying rent on Cbd028, causing the Plaintiff to lose the plot. This constitutes a breach of the Civil Code Act Part XIII Statute 3.

4. The Defendant failed to meet their contractual obligations, constituting a breach of the Civil Code Act Part VI Statute 4.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. Compensatory damages amounting to 30% of the profits made by RazCreative (32,000 DCC at the time of filing)

2. 13,139.16 DCC for lost profits that could have been gotten by investing the lost profits since signing the contract at a 3.5% interest rate.

3. Punitive damages amounting to 50,000 DCC due to the Defendant committing multiple breaches of the contract outrageously.

5. 2000 DCC in compensatory damages for the leasing rights to Cbd028.

6. 5000 DCC in capital investment funds to be repaid in the form of compensatory damages.

7. 200 Civil Penalty Units (totalling 20,000 DCC @ 100 DCC per Unit)

8. 30% of the total damages awarded in legal fees paid to Blackstone Law Group ( DCC)

9. Any other damages the court deems just and proper to award

Totalling 158,780.91 DCC ( 122,139.16 DCC + 36,641.75 DCC) in damages.


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 9th day of August, 2026

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: P-004

Spoiler: P-005

Spoiler: P-006

Spoiler: P-007

Spoiler: P-008

Spoiler: P-009

 

[ko531]

Writ of Summons

@Raz0Baz0 is hereby commanded to draw hither to the Federal Court for the case TuffCapital v. Razcreative [2026] FCR 70

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.

 

[NoMoreUno]

Present on behalf of Raz0Baz0, Your Honor.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[ko531]

Present on behalf of Raz0Baz0, Your Honor.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

View attachment 94387

You have 48 hours to provide an answer to complaint.

 

[NoMoreUno]

Response

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

TuffCapital
Plaintiff

v.

RazCreative
Defendant

I. Answer to Complaint

1. The Defense affirms that Raz0Baz0 seeked a contract with TuffCapital to fund the start up of the Company.

2. The Defense affirms that both TuffCapital and Raz0Baz0 on behalf of RazCreative agreed to a contract regarding capital investment.

3. The Defense affirms that the Contract stipulates that TuffCapital would issue a 5000 DCC capital investment to RazCreative.

4. The Defense affirms that the Contract stipulates that TuffCapital would issue a 800 DCC capital investment to RazCreative to be used by Raz0Baz0 to rent the plot cbd028 for 28 days. (P-003)

5. The Defense affirms that the Contract stipulates that Raz0Baz0 would receive the leasing rights to cbd028. (P-003)

6. The Defense affirms that the leasing rights were valued at 2000 DCC in the contract.

7. The Defense affirms that at the time of signing, RazCreative was valued at 26,000 DCC. (P-003)

8. The Defense affirms that the investment made by TuffCapital into RazCreative would have amounted to a 30% equity in the company.

9. The Defense denies that it was agreed in a Discord chat between Raz0Baz0 and TuffCapital that TuffCapital would receive 30% of all profits of RazCreative.

10. The Defense denies that the plaintiff has made multiple attempts to resolve this without court intervention.

11. The Defense affirms that the balance of RazCreative at the time of filing was 30.15 DCC.

12. The Defense affirms that the balance of Raz0Baz0 was at the time of filing 247,225.33 DCC.

13. The Defense affirms that RazCreative has disclosed sales amounting to 96,000 DCC.

14. The Defense affirms that RazCreative was contractually obligated to disclose all sales to TuffCapital in the ticket.

15. The Defense denies that RazCreative or Raz0Baz0 on behalf of it did not disclose all sales without being asked by TuffCapital to do so.

16. The Defense denies that Raz0Baz0 on behalf of RazCreative agreed in the contract to maintain a balance of 800 DCC to cover one (1) month’s rent of cbd028.

17. The Defense affirms that RazCreative or Raz0Baz0 has not paid anything to TuffCapital.

18. The Defense denies that TuffCapital has suffered significant financial losses due to Raz0Baz0 breaching the contract agreed to by both parties.

19. The Defense denies that RazCreative was contractually obligated to keep one (1) month’s rent in the balance but failed to do so, causing the plaintiff to lose the plot to the Government of Redmont.

20. The Defense denies that due to the balances stated in facts 11, 12 and 13, it is most likely true that the profits made from artwork sales or other business activities conducted by RazCreative were credited to Raz0Baz0’s personal bank account.

21. The Defense denies that the losses caused by Raz0Baz0 depriving TuffCapital of their rightfully earned profits could have yielded a profit of 3.5% if invested in a financial institution.

II. Defenses

1. The contract that the Defendant agreed to stipulates that he must maintain accurate payment records and update the Plaintiff promptly. With the Plaintiff's own evidence, we can see that the Defendant did, in fact, over the course of multiple days, update the Plaintiff on what they had sold just as they were required to. The Plaintiff has not shown any evidence of additional prompting; and even if such evidence were to be provided, the Defendant would still have ultimately supplied the Plaintiff with accurate total transaction history over multiple days. This term of the contract was not breached.

2. Equity does not automatically equal profit. While the Plaintiff owns 30% equity, they are not automatically entitled to 30% royalties on all sales. The signed contract does not specify that the Plaintiff is entitled to any royalties. The Plaintiff has not proven that any dividends were paid out that they may be entitled to. Additionally, the Plaintiff alleges that they could have yielded a 3.5% return on this sum if it was invested in a bank. No evidence supporting this claim has been provided.

3. The Plaintiff states that "the Defendant outrageously neglected paying rent on Cbd028, causing the Plaintiff to lose the plot." If the Defendant was the individual responsible for paying rent as P-003 stipulates, the Plaintiff did not lose the plot; the Defendant did. This harms the Defendant, not the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has not proven that they were substantially harmed by the loss of this plot.

4. Failing to meet contractual obligations constitutes a breach of contract, not Failure to Deliver Goods or Services. While these two may at times overlap, the Plaintiff has failed to allege any specific good or service that was not delivered, merely claiming that "the Defendant failed to meet their contractual obligations". The Plaintiff has already accused the Defendant of breach of contract. This is an attempt to tack on another charge to squeeze as much money out of the Defendant as possible.


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 11th day of August, 2026

 

[NoMoreUno]

The Defendant would like to move for an in-game trial.

 

[ko531]

The Defendant would like to move for an in-game trial.

Does the Plaintiff agree to an ingame trial?

 

[TuliTukka]

The Plaintiff respectfully declines the motion for an in game trial.

 

[NoMoreUno]

Will we be moving onto discovery, then?

 

[ko531]

We will be entering discovery. Discovery will last 5 days and end on Aug 17th at 4:30 pm EST. Unless both sides agree to end discovery early.

 

[TuliTukka]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION TO COMPEL

The Plaintiff desires staff to produce all financial transactions, chestshop sales, and other relevant financial records of RazCreative between 14/10/2025 1.19 AM UTC +0 and 12/08/2026 21.40 UTC +0, in order to verify the actual damages suffered by the Plaintiff.

 

[ko531]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION TO COMPEL

The Plaintiff desires staff to produce all financial transactions, chestshop sales, and other relevant financial records of RazCreative between 14/10/2025 1.19 AM UTC +0 and 12/08/2026 21.40 UTC +0, in order to verify the actual damages suffered by the Plaintiff.

Motion to Compel denied.

This is way to burdensom on staff, asking for nearly 10 months' worth of logs. Additionally, certain logs are only kept up to 90 days. There is a good possibility some of these logs no longer exist.

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE — STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

The Federal Court, upon reviewing the recent motion to compel and the case as a whole, noticed an issue with the timeline. The statute of Limitations as set in the Criminal Code Act Part I, Section 6(7)(a), is 4 months. So at the time of filing this case, the events must have happened by April 9th, 2026 at the latest. Reviewing the plaintiff's facts and evidence shows the events happened in October of 2025, outside of the statute of limitations.

The Federal Court is thus contemplating dismissing this case, Sue Sponte, under Court Rule 5.10. Before such action, the court will issue this order to show cause for the plaintiff to answer.

Within 48 hours, Plaintiff shall brief the Court in response to the following question(s):

1. Is this case within the required statute of limitations?
2. If within the statute of limitations, what event or action that gives the plaintiff grounds for this suit happened on or after April 9th 2026?

Failure to respond to the Order to Show Cause within 48 hours of the time of this post shall result in a Contempt of Court charge.

 

[TuliTukka]

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
AMICUS BRIEF


An Observation on the Governing Provision

Before addressing the questions by the honorable Judge, Plaintiff respectfully notes that the Judge’s Order cites the statute of limitations provision in the Redmont Criminal Code Act, Part I, §6(7)(a). As this is a civil matter, Plaintiff believes the Court may have intended to reference the provision governing civil actions, Redmont Civil Code Act, Part II, §6(2). The two provisions share nearly identical language as to the four-month/two-month timeframe, however, unlike the Criminal Code Act, the Civil Code Act contains a tolling provision for fraudulent concealment, which is directly relevant to Plaintiff's response below.


Response to Question 1:

Yes. Whilst the underlying Equity and Investment Agreement was signed on 14th of October, 2025, and Defendant's reporting obligations under that Agreement began at that time, Plaintiff requests that the limitations clock shall be tolled pursuant to Civil Code Act, Part II, §6(2)(b), where it is stated that "the statute of limitations may be tolled where the defendant has fraudulently concealed the violation from the plaintiff."


Response to Question 2:

Defendant provided sales updates until 18th of February, 2026, when the Defendant disclosed the sales of "The Scream" for $25,000 and "Stag Hunt" for $40,000. Following this date, Defendant ceased reporting entirely. Plaintiff had no reasonable means of knowing, at that time, whether the ceasing of reporting was due to simple inactivity or active concealment of proceeds.


Beginning in May of 2026, the Plaintiff made repeated good-faith attempts to resolve the matter outside of court. On the 21st of May, 2026, the Plaintiff's counsel directly requested disclosure of RazCreative's total revenue from the 14th of October, 2025 to the present. The Defendant's representative acknowledged the request and stated they would provide the figures "in a bit," but no such disclosure was ever made to the knowledge of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff even followed up on the 30th of May, 2026.


The Plaintiff's efforts to settle this matter without recourse to the Court were also hindered when the Plaintiff's original counsel withdrew from the matter without warning and without informing the Plaintiff of their withdrawal, requiring the Plaintiff to secure new representation before proceeding.



It is for these reasons, that the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Statute of Limitations be tolled and requests that the Court decline to dismiss the case sua sponte.

 

[TuliTukka]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND CASE FILING

Your honor, it has come to the attention of the Plaintiff that the Defendant has sold atleast one more artwork on the 18th of June, 2026 that was not disclosed to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff moves to amend the case filing’s prayer for relief under The Court Rules and Procedures Rule 3.3 to reflect the actual damages suffered by the Plaintiff.

The prayer for relief would be amended to the following (changes are bolded):

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. Compensatory damages amounting to 30% of the profits made by RazCreative (92,000 DCC at the time of amendment)

2. 37,775.09 DCC for lost profits that could have been gotten by investing the lost profits since signing the contract at a 3.5% interest rate.

3. Punitive damages amounting to 50,000 DCC due to the Defendant committing multiple breaches of the contract outrageously.

5. 2000 DCC in compensatory damages for the leasing rights to Cbd028.

6. 5000 DCC in capital investment funds to be repaid in the form of compensatory damages.

7. 200 Civil Penalty Units (totalling 20,000 DCC @ 100 DCC per Unit)

8. 30% of the total damages awarded in legal fees paid to Blackstone Law Group (65,974.28 DCC)

9. Any other damages the court deems just and proper to award

Totalling 285,889.53 DCC (219,914.25 DCC + 65,974.28 DCC) in damages.

The evidence (P-101, P-011, P-012) supporting this increase to the damages is attached below. The Plaintiff also hopes that the judge recognises the fact that, as this sale was completed within the past four months, the entire case is still within it’s statute of limitations even if the the statute of limitations is not tolled.

Spoiler: P-010

Spoiler: P-011

Spoiler: P-012

 

[NoMoreUno]

Motion

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

Your Honor,

The Defendant moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's third claim for relief on the grounds of a factual error.
The Plaintiff alleges in their facts that RazCreative was contractually obligated to keep one month’s rent in the balance and failed to do so, causing the plaintiff to lose the plot to the Government of Redmont.

This is factually incorrect. Refer to Exhibit P-002. The Plaintiff specifically told the Defendant that the terms of the contract had changed, and that was only obligated to keep 2 weeks of rent in his balance at a time. Throughout the entire course of discovery and through a motion to amend, the Plaintiff has not fixed this error.

The Plaintiff's claim relies on the claim that the Defendant was negligent in not maintaining a month of rent. The Plaintiff was not obligated to maintain a month's worth of rent. This claim should be dismissed.

 

[TuliTukka]

​

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND CASE FILING

Your honor, as the defendant has noted in the motion above, the Plaintiff has made an error whilst filing this case. As such, the Plaintiff moves to amend the case filing’s prayer for relief under The Redmont Court Rules and Procedures Rule 3.3

The prayer for relief would be amended to the following (changes are bolded):

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. Compensatory damages amounting to 30% of the profits made by RazCreative (92,000 DCC at the time of amendment)

2. 37,775.09 DCC for lost profits that could have been gotten by investing the lost profits since signing the contract at a 3.5% interest rate.

3. Punitive damages amounting to 50,000 DCC due to the Defendant committing multiple breaches of the contract outrageously.

5. 800 DCC in compensatory damages for the leasing rights to Cbd028.

6. 5000 DCC in capital investment funds to be repaid in the form of compensatory damages.

7. 200 Civil Penalty Units (totalling 20,000 DCC @ 100 DCC per Unit)

8. 30% of the total damages awarded in legal fees paid to Blackstone Law Group (65,614.27 DCC)

9. Any other damages the court deems just and proper to award

Totalling
285,528.53 DCC (218,714.25
DCC +65,614.27 DCC) in damages.

 

[ko531]

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
AMICUS BRIEF


An Observation on the Governing Provision

Before addressing the questions by the honorable Judge, Plaintiff respectfully notes that the Judge’s Order cites the statute of limitations provision in the Redmont Criminal Code Act, Part I, §6(7)(a). As this is a civil matter, Plaintiff believes the Court may have intended to reference the provision governing civil actions, Redmont Civil Code Act, Part II, §6(2). The two provisions share nearly identical language as to the four-month/two-month timeframe, however, unlike the Criminal Code Act, the Civil Code Act contains a tolling provision for fraudulent concealment, which is directly relevant to Plaintiff's response below.


Response to Question 1:

Yes. Whilst the underlying Equity and Investment Agreement was signed on 14th of October, 2025, and Defendant's reporting obligations under that Agreement began at that time, Plaintiff requests that the limitations clock shall be tolled pursuant to Civil Code Act, Part II, §6(2)(b), where it is stated that "the statute of limitations may be tolled where the defendant has fraudulently concealed the violation from the plaintiff."


Response to Question 2:

Defendant provided sales updates until 18th of February, 2026, when the Defendant disclosed the sales of "The Scream" for $25,000 and "Stag Hunt" for $40,000. Following this date, Defendant ceased reporting entirely. Plaintiff had no reasonable means of knowing, at that time, whether the ceasing of reporting was due to simple inactivity or active concealment of proceeds.


Beginning in May of 2026, the Plaintiff made repeated good-faith attempts to resolve the matter outside of court. On the 21st of May, 2026, the Plaintiff's counsel directly requested disclosure of RazCreative's total revenue from the 14th of October, 2025 to the present. The Defendant's representative acknowledged the request and stated they would provide the figures "in a bit," but no such disclosure was ever made to the knowledge of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff even followed up on the 30th of May, 2026.


The Plaintiff's efforts to settle this matter without recourse to the Court were also hindered when the Plaintiff's original counsel withdrew from the matter without warning and without informing the Plaintiff of their withdrawal, requiring the Plaintiff to secure new representation before proceeding.



It is for these reasons, that the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Statute of Limitations be tolled and requests that the Court decline to dismiss the case sua sponte.

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE — STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PART 2

Your explanation raises more questions than answers. I admit I accidentally cited the wrong act even though the wording is almost identical. Statutes of limitations in the RCCA Part II Section 6(2) need one of two things: The suit needs to be filed within 4 months of the alleged violation or within 2 months of the plaintiff becoming aware of the violation if outside the first window.

In your response, you state both:
"Plaintiff had no reasonable means of knowing, at that time"
"Beginning in May of 2026, the Plaintiff made repeated good-faith attempts to resolve the matter outside of court"

This throws the 2-month window based on the plaintiff's awareness out. These statements show that the plaintiff was aware inside the 4-month window of any potential breach after February 18th. Additionally, that awareness was over 2 months prior to this lawsuit being filed.

At this point, for this suit to be within the statute of limitations, it needs the first breach of this contract to be on or after April 9th 2026. Or the statute of limitations can be tolled if the violation was fraudulently concealed. The tolling of the statute of limitations seems to be what you are relying on.

Within 48 hours, Plaintiff shall brief the Court in response to the following question(s):

1. What event, action, statement, or anything else first brought to your clients' attention that a breach of the contract occurred, which would warrant the "good-faith" resolution attempts in May?

2. Is there any evidence of fraudulent concealment of the breach of contract by the defendant that would warrant the tolling of the statute of limitations?

3. Fact 15 of the complaint references Exhibit P-010, but no exhibit exists. Was this a typo? If not please provide this evidence in your response.


Failure to respond to the Order to Show Cause within 48 hours of the time of this post shall result in a Contempt of Court charge.

 

[xVoltrix]

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Response to question 1:
The Plaintiff was looking through their old business records and noticed that the Defendant hadn't reported any of their last sales. This led the Plaintiff to look for legal assistance, which led to the resolution attempts.

Response to question 2:
The Defendant has failed to dislose their sales within two time periods. The first instance occurred between the 17th of October and the 18th of February 2026 - when they only disclosed their recent sales after having to be prompted to do so - and since then, as shown in previous exhibits, the Plaintiff has sold art under their own name instead of their company's and funneled the income into their personal balance. This conduct is completely unethical and a breach of the "Equity and Investment Agreement" signed by the Defendant.

Response to question 3:
Your Honor, the Plaintiff's counsel deeply apologizes for this. We assume that the last addition (Exhibit P-010) to the case fiiling wasn't saved due to a bad internet connection; as the Plaintiff's counsel was traveling at the time. It is now filed under Exhibit P-013.

Spoiler: Exhibit P-013

 

[ko531]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE — STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PART 3

We are very close to figuring this matter out. In P-013, the court finds no evidence that the defendant fraudulently concealed the breach of contract. While the defendant may have concealed the alleged breach of contract, no evidence shows it was fraudulent.

What is concerning is that in this May confrontation, there is already the allegation of possible breaches of the contract. This can be seen by the potential discrepancies called out with RazCreative's balance. Yet P-10, P-011 and P-012 only show potential breaches in June, almost a month later.

However, P-013 indicates one of the first alleged breaches in this contract. When confronting Raz, it is said:

"The contract also stipulates that Raz0Baz0 would maintain communication of sales through the appropriate channels (which I see you have done other than 'Herobrine Cardboard Cutout')"

This "Herobrine Cardboard Cutout" might be the key needed to see when the alleged first breach of this contract was. This will let us know when the Statute of Limitations Clock should start and stop.

Within 48 hours, Plaintiff shall brief the Court in response to the following question(s):

1. Provide evidence showing the date and time of the "Herobrine Cardboard Cutout" sale which was never reported to TuffCapital.


Failure to respond to the Order to Show Cause within 48 hours of the time of this post shall result in a Contempt of Court charge.

 

[xVoltrix]

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Response:
The cutout was posted in #marketplace on the 24th of February 2026 and sold on the 26th of February.
The link to the auction: Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games

Furthermore:
Fraud is defined in the Criminal Code Act as follows:

7 - Fraud
Offence Type: Indictable
Penalty: Up to 200 Penalty Units; Up to 10 minutes 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.

As such, it is reasonable to conclude that by concealing the sales from TuffCapital, the Defendant has fraudulently concealed the breach of contract, and through the Plaintiff's reliance on that ommission to mean the Defendant hadn't sold anything, they have been harmed financially. Therefore, the statute of limitations must be tolled and this lawsuit must not be dismissed.

Spoiler: Exhibit P-014

Spoiler: Exhibit P-015