Lawsuit: Pending Volt Bank, Inc. v. Alta Group Corporation [2025] FCR 128

[ToadKing]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Your Honour,

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court issue an emergency injunction to halt the ongoing government auction of Plot S105 and prohibit any transfer or sale of said property pending resolution of this matter. Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm because of the ongoing auction.

On 31 October 2025, Plaintiff extended a $700,000 loan to Defendant, secured by fourteen real estate plots, including Plot S105. The Loan Agreement explicitly prohibits Defendant from selling, transferring, or disposing of any collateral without Plaintiff's prior written consent. Plot S105 has been seized by the government and is currently listed for active auction.

A full case will be filed soon.

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Your Honour,

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court issue an emergency injunction to halt the ongoing government auction of Plot S105 and prohibit any transfer or sale of said property pending resolution of this matter. Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm because of the ongoing auction.

On 31 October 2025, Plaintiff extended a $700,000 loan to Defendant, secured by fourteen real estate plots, including Plot S105. The Loan Agreement explicitly prohibits Defendant from selling, transferring, or disposing of any collateral without Plaintiff's prior written consent. Plot S105 has been seized by the government and is currently listed for active auction.

A full case will be filed soon.

EI Granted. DCT shall halt the ongoing auction pending an order from this Court. The EI is in effect for 4 Hours, until the cessation of this case.

 

[ToadKing]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Volt Bank, Inc. (represented by ToadKing)
Plaintiff

v.

Alta Group Corporation
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendants as follows:

The Defendant defaulted on a loan agreement with the Plaintiff by allowing collateral property (Plot S105) to be seized by the government and listed for auction without the Lender's prior notice or consent, in direct violation of Section 2.4 and Section 3.1 of the Loan Agreement, constituting Breach of Contract

I. PARTIES​

1. Volt Bank, Inc.
2. Alta Group Corporation
3. 12700k (Owner of Alta Group)

​

II. FACTS​

1. On 31 October 2025, the Defendant executed a Loan Agreement with Volt Bank, Inc. (P-001, P-002)
2. Under the Loan Agreement, Volt Bank extended a loan to the Defendant in the principal amount of $700,000. (P-003)
3. The Loan Agreement bears interest at a rate of 8% per month (simple interest) and has a loan term of 1 month. (P-004)
4. Section 2.4 of the Loan Agreement provides that the Defendant granted Volt Bank a security interest in the following collateral properties: c257, c256, c330, s030, s107, s105, s118, r027, r058, r101, av-c076, av-c078, av-c056, av-c057. (P-005)
5. Section 2.4 of the Loan Agreement explicitly states: "The Borrower agrees not to sell, transfer, gift, assign, lease, or list for sale/re-sale any of the Collateral in any manner before the loan is paid in full, without the Lender's prior written consent." (P-005)
6. Section 3.1 of the Loan Agreement defines "Unauthorized Transfer of Collateral" as an Event of Default: "The Borrower sells, transfers, trades, leases, or lists for sale any of the Collateral (or any part of it) without the Lender's prior consent, or otherwise disposes of or encumbers the Collateral in any way before the loan is fully repaid." (P-006)
7. On or around 1 December 2025, Plot S105 was seized by the government of the Commonwealth of Redmont. (P-007, P-008)
8. The government has listed Plot S105 for auction. (P-009)
9. The auction is currently active and ongoing.
10. Plot S105 is no longer held by 12700k on behalf of Alta Group Corporation.
11. The Defendant did not provide any prior notice to Volt Bank regarding the government seizure or auction of Plot S105.
12. The Defendant has not repaid any portion of the principal amount of $700,000.
13. As of the date of this Complaint, the total amount owed under the Loan Agreement is $756,000 ($700,000 principal plus $56,000 in accrued interest).
14. The loss of Plot S105 as collateral constitutes an unauthorised transfer and disposal of collateral in violation of Section 2.4 of the Loan Agreement.
15. The Defendant has defaulted under the Loan Agreement pursuant to Section 3.1.

​

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

Section 7 of the Contracts Act states:

7 - Breach of Contract
(1) A breach of contract occurs when a party fails to fulfil its contractual obligations.
(a) Remedies for breach may include damages, specific performance, or other equitable relief.

The Defendant breached the Loan Agreement under Section 7 of the Contracts Act by:

1. Allowing Plot S105 to be seized by the government and listed for auction without providing prior notice to Volt Bank, in direct violation of Section 2.4 of the Loan Agreement.
2. Failing to prevent the unauthorised transfer and disposal of collateral, thereby triggering an Event of Default under Section 3.1 of the Loan Agreement.
3. Failing to repay the principal amount of $700,000 despite the occurrence of an Event of Default.

Under Section 3.3 of the Loan Agreement, upon an Event of Default, Volt Bank is entitled to:

1. Declare the entire remaining loan balance (principal plus accrued interest) immediately due and payable in full (Acceleration of Debt).
2. Seize all remaining collateral: "If Collateral is specified and an Event of Default occurs, the Borrower forfeits any rights to the Collateral. The Lender is entitled to immediately take ownership of, repossess, or otherwise seize the Collateral without further notice or court order."
3. Pursue legal action to enforce the Agreement and recover amounts due, including court costs and legal fees.

​

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant the following relief:

1. A Court Order immediately transferring ownership of all remaining collateral plots to Volt Bank, Inc., including: c257, c256, c330, s030, s107, s118, r027, r058, r101, av-c076, av-c078, av-c056, av-c057, pursuant to Section 3.3 of the Loan Agreement.

2. A Court Order immediately halting the government auction of Plot S105 and transferring ownership of Plot S105 to Volt Bank, Inc. as collateral security for the outstanding debt.

3. $756,000 in Compensatory Damages representing the total accelerated debt ($700,000 principal plus $56,000 accrued interest), less the value of any assets transferred, pursuant to Legal Damages Act, Section 4.

4. Compensatory Damages for all additional interest that continues to accrue at the contractual rate from the date of this Complaint through the date of judgment, pursuant to Legal Damages Act, Section 4.

5. 30% Legal Fees pursuant to Legal Damages Act Section 9.

EVIDENCE​

Spoiler: P-001

See Volt Loan Agreement (FTLCEO).pdf

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: P-004

Spoiler: P-005

Spoiler: P-006

Spoiler: P-007

https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/s105-nov-20-2025.33130/

Spoiler: P-008

Spoiler: P-009

Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games

Discord is great for playing games and chilling with friends, or even building a worldwide community. Customize your own space to talk, play, and hang out.

discord.com

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 2nd day of December 2025

 

[Muggy21]

EI Granted. DCT shall halt the ongoing auction pending an order from this Court. The EI is in effect for 4 Hours.

The Court extends the Emergency Injunction to the cessation of this case.

 

[ToadKing]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Your Honour,

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court issue an emergency injunction and asset freeze to halt the ongoing fraudulent dissipation of collateral and assets by Defendant.

Plaintiff has now discovered that Defendant has engaged in a systematic scheme to fraudulently strip and dissipate the collateral securing the loan. Specifically, Defendant has transferred away at least four collateral plots without Plaintiff's knowledge or consent (P-014):

1. Plot r101 was transferred to peuko before 24 November 2025 (not currently owned by Defendant) (P-010);
2. Plot c330 was transferred to RylandW before 24 November 2025 (not currently owned by Defendant)(P-011);
3. Plot r027 was transferred to GovDevelop before 24 November 2025 (not currently owned by Defendant) (P-012); and
4. Plot s105 has been seized by the government and is currently listed for active auction.

These transfers constitute clear fraud and intentional breach of contract, demonstrating Defendants' ongoing pattern of dissipating assets to render themselves judgment-proof and deprive Plaintiff of its secured collateral.

Given this systematic fraudulent conduct and the imminent risk that Defendant will continue to transfer, hide, or dissipate all remaining assets to evade their $700,000 debt obligation, Plaintiff requests this Court immediately freeze all assets and property of: Alta Group Corporation, Citadel Bank Incorporated (owned by 12700k, P-015, P-016) and 12700k individually to prevent further irreparable harm.

Specifically, Plaintiff requests the Court freeze:

1. All real estate plots currently owned by Defendant or transferred away from Defendant, including but not limited to all remaining collateral plots (c257, c256, s030, s107, s118, r058, av-c076, av-c078, av-c056, av-c057) and any other plots owned by Defendant (P-013);
2. All money held by Defendant, including in-game balance, business balance, any bank account balances at any financial institution, National Exchange of Redmont (NER) balance, and any cash held anywhere in Redmont; and
3. All items and blocks held in Defendants' inventory, EnderChest, supporter chests, and any containers owned by Defendant anywhere in Redmont.

Spoiler: P-010

Spoiler: P-011

Spoiler: P-012

Spoiler: P-013

Spoiler: P-014

Spoiler: P-015

https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/citadel-bank-incorporated.32130/

Spoiler: P-016

 

[Muggy21]

On 12/1/25 at 8:26pm EST, Omegabiebel (Omegatuk) pinged the Court regarding an EI on an active case. Therefore,

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order - Contempt of Court, Omegabiebel


The Court finds that the party has engaged in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice in violation of Criminal Code Act, Part III, Section 2(b). Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s holding in Appeal: Denied – [2025] FCR 119, no prior warning is required for contempt under subsection (b). Accordingly, Omegabiebel is hereby held in Contempt of Court and shall be fined $1,000 and imprisoned for 10 minutes.

So Ordered,
Judge Mug

 

[ToadKing]

View attachment 68227

On 12/1/25 at 8:26pm EST, Omegabiebel (Omegatuk) pinged the Court regarding an EI on an active case. Therefore,

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order - Contempt of Court, Omegabiebel


The Court finds that the party has engaged in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice in violation of Criminal Code Act, Part III, Section 2(b). Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s holding in Appeal: Denied – [2025] FCR 119, no prior warning is required for contempt under subsection (b). Accordingly, Omegabiebel is hereby held in Contempt of Court and shall be fined $1,000 and imprisoned for 10 minutes.

So Ordered,
Judge Mug

Motion

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

Your Honour,

Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court to reconsider its Order finding Omegabiebel in Contempt of Court. The contempt finding arose from a single Discord ping notifying the Court and the opposing party of an emergency injunction filing.

For the reasons set forth below, the conduct at issue does not constitute contempt under the Criminal Code Act, the finding is inconsistent with this Court's own precedent, and the penalty imposed is grossly disproportionate to similar conduct in other cases before this same Court and presiding officer.

I. The Conduct Does Not Meet the Legal Standard for Contempt Under Section 2(b)​

Section 2 of the Criminal Code Act defines crime of Contempt of Court as:

A person commits an offence if the person:
(a) disobeys a lawful order of the court; or
(b) engages in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice.

The Supreme Court's decision in [2025] FCR 119 - Appeal makes clear that contempt under subsection (b) requires "misconduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice." The conduct at issue here - a single informational ping notifying the Court of an emergency filing - does not obstruct or interfere with justice; it facilitates it.

Emergency injunctions by their very nature require immediate judicial attention. Notifying the presiding officer and opposing party of such a filing assists the administration of justice by ensuring timely awareness of urgent matters. Far from obstructing the Court, this communication enabled the Court to promptly consider a previous motion. To hold that such notification constitutes contempt would create a perverse incentive for litigants not to notify courts of emergency filings, thereby actually obstructing justice.

​

II. The Finding Is Inconsistent With This Court's Own Precedent​

This Court's disparate treatment of similar conduct demonstrates that the contempt finding here was improper. In YeetGlazer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 76, this same presiding officer found a party in contempt for "pinging the presiding officer and subsequently debating the Hon. Judge Ameslap regarding this case." The conduct in that case involved not only pinging but also engaging in debate with the judge about the case - conduct that more clearly interferes with judicial proceedings. Yet the Court imposed only a $500 fine with no imprisonment. By contrast, Omegabiebel's conduct was far less intrusive: a single informational ping with no debate, no argument, and no challenge to the Court's authority. Despite this less egregious conduct, the penalty was doubled ($1,000 v. $500) and included imprisonment (10 minutes v. none). This grossly disproportionate treatment violates basic principles of equal justice and suggests the contempt finding was arbitrary rather than based on the severity of the conduct.

​

III. The Cited Supreme Court Precedent Does Not Support This Application​

The Court's Order cites [2025] FCR 119 - Appeal for the proposition that "no prior warning is required for contempt under subsection (b)." While this statement of law is correct, the factual circumstances of that case are entirely distinguishable from the present matter. In [2025] FCR 119, the contempt finding was based on a staff statement alleging that the appellant had engaged in collusion by providing information about alt accounts during active litigation - conduct that would have directly undermined the integrity of the judicial process.

The Supreme Court in [2025] FCR 119 - Appeal affirmed the contempt finding because the conduct (collusion regarding alt accounts) clearly obstructed justice. The Court's analysis focused on whether a staff statement could constitute sufficient evidence, not on the underlying standard for what conduct constitutes obstruction of justice. The decision nowhere suggests that purely informational communications to the Court about emergency filings constitute contempt. To the contrary, the [2025] FCR 119 - Appeal decision reinforces that contempt under subsection (b) requires actual obstruction or interference, not merely communication with the Court.

​

IV. The Penalty Is Excessive and Disproportionate​

Even if the conduct could somehow be construed as contempt (which it cannot), the penalty of $1,000 and 10 minutes imprisonment is grossly excessive. As noted above, in [2025] FCR 76, this same Court imposed only a $500 fine for conduct that was objectively worse. The doubling of the fine and addition of imprisonment for less egregious conduct is arbitrary and capricious.

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

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

Your Honour,

Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court to reconsider its Order finding Omegabiebel in Contempt of Court. The contempt finding arose from a single Discord ping notifying the Court and the opposing party of an emergency injunction filing.

For the reasons set forth below, the conduct at issue does not constitute contempt under the Criminal Code Act, the finding is inconsistent with this Court's own precedent, and the penalty imposed is grossly disproportionate to similar conduct in other cases before this same Court and presiding officer.

I. The Conduct Does Not Meet the Legal Standard for Contempt Under Section 2(b)​

Section 2 of the Criminal Code Act defines crime of Contempt of Court as:

The Supreme Court's decision in [2025] FCR 119 - Appeal makes clear that contempt under subsection (b) requires "misconduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice." The conduct at issue here - a single informational ping notifying the Court of an emergency filing - does not obstruct or interfere with justice; it facilitates it.

Emergency injunctions by their very nature require immediate judicial attention. Notifying the presiding officer and opposing party of such a filing assists the administration of justice by ensuring timely awareness of urgent matters. Far from obstructing the Court, this communication enabled the Court to promptly consider a previous motion. To hold that such notification constitutes contempt would create a perverse incentive for litigants not to notify courts of emergency filings, thereby actually obstructing justice.

​

II. The Finding Is Inconsistent With This Court's Own Precedent​

This Court's disparate treatment of similar conduct demonstrates that the contempt finding here was improper. In YeetGlazer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 76, this same presiding officer found a party in contempt for "pinging the presiding officer and subsequently debating the Hon. Judge Ameslap regarding this case." The conduct in that case involved not only pinging but also engaging in debate with the judge about the case - conduct that more clearly interferes with judicial proceedings. Yet the Court imposed only a $500 fine with no imprisonment. By contrast, Omegabiebel's conduct was far less intrusive: a single informational ping with no debate, no argument, and no challenge to the Court's authority. Despite this less egregious conduct, the penalty was doubled ($1,000 v. $500) and included imprisonment (10 minutes v. none). This grossly disproportionate treatment violates basic principles of equal justice and suggests the contempt finding was arbitrary rather than based on the severity of the conduct.

​

III. The Cited Supreme Court Precedent Does Not Support This Application​

The Court's Order cites [2025] FCR 119 - Appeal for the proposition that "no prior warning is required for contempt under subsection (b)." While this statement of law is correct, the factual circumstances of that case are entirely distinguishable from the present matter. In [2025] FCR 119, the contempt finding was based on a staff statement alleging that the appellant had engaged in collusion by providing information about alt accounts during active litigation - conduct that would have directly undermined the integrity of the judicial process.

The Supreme Court in [2025] FCR 119 - Appeal affirmed the contempt finding because the conduct (collusion regarding alt accounts) clearly obstructed justice. The Court's analysis focused on whether a staff statement could constitute sufficient evidence, not on the underlying standard for what conduct constitutes obstruction of justice. The decision nowhere suggests that purely informational communications to the Court about emergency filings constitute contempt. To the contrary, the [2025] FCR 119 - Appeal decision reinforces that contempt under subsection (b) requires actual obstruction or interference, not merely communication with the Court.

​

IV. The Penalty Is Excessive and Disproportionate​

Even if the conduct could somehow be construed as contempt (which it cannot), the penalty of $1,000 and 10 minutes imprisonment is grossly excessive. As noted above, in [2025] FCR 76, this same Court imposed only a $500 fine for conduct that was objectively worse. The doubling of the fine and addition of imprisonment for less egregious conduct is arbitrary and capricious.

DENIED.

This Court, at the time of writing, had 11 cases presently on its docket. The first EI, regarding s105, was regarding property actively being auctioned; Emergency action was absolutely warranted and Omega was right to ping me and opposing.

This 2nd EI is not as urgent. All of the alleged property transfers occurred last week. Yet, Omega believed it prudent to notify this Court again as if it were as urgent. I am not Judge Mug, personal administrator of Justice for Volt Bank or Omega; I am Judge Mug, someone who will review the EI in good course and not be pestered to hurry up. Pinging a presiding officer on an active case is obstruction of justice.

 

[Muggy21]

@ToadKing @AmityBlamity

I've passed this case to Judge Amity.

 

[ToadKing]

Your Honour,

I would just like to inform the Court that both parties are endeavouring to reach a settlement to resolve this matter swiftly.