Lawsuit: Adjourned Volt Bank, Inc. v. Sagamo2008 [2025] FCR 135

[ToadKing]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Volt Bank, Inc.
Plaintiff

v.

Sagamo2008
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complain against the Defendants as follows:

The Defendant defaulted on two separate loan agreements with the Plaintiff by failing to make any required monthly interest payments and failing to repay principal amounts, in direct violation of both Loan Agreements, constituting Breach of Contract.

I. PARTIES​

1. Volt Bank, Inc.
2. Sagamo2008

​

II. FACTS​

1. On 23 October 2025, the Defendant executed a Loan Agreement with Volt Bank, Inc. (P-001)
2. The Defendant signed the First Loan Agreement on 23 October 2025. (P-002)
3. Under the First Loan Agreement, Plaintiff extended a loan to the Defendant in the principal amount of $50,000. (P-003)
4. The First Loan Agreement bears interest at a rate of 10% per month (simple interest) and has a loan term of 10 months. (P-003)
5. The Repayment Schedule specifies "monthly interest payments with principal repayment at the end", requiring monthly interest payments of $5,000 ($50,000 x 10% = $5,000). (P-003)
6. Section 2.4 of the First Loan Agreement provides that the Defendant granted Plaintiff a security interest in Plot s079 as collateral. (P-004)
7. The first monthly interest payment of $5,000 was due on 23 November 2025. (P-003)
8. The Defendant has failed to make the monthly interest payment due on 23 November 2025, which is now 27 days overdue as of 20 December 2025. (P-003)
9. On 4 November 2025, the Defendant executed a second Loan Agreement with Volt Bank, Inc. (P-005)
10. The Defendant signed the Second Loan Agreement on 4 November 2025. (P-006)
11. Volt Bank, Inc. formally executed the Second Loan Agreement on 9 November 2025 when the VSP-3 bond was officially listed on the National Exchange of Redmont, as required by the loan's coupling addendum. (P-007)
12. Under the Second Loan Agreement, Volt Bank extended a loan to the Defendant in the principal amount of $130,000. (P-008)
13. The Second Loan Agreement bears interest at a rate of 15% per month (simple interest) and has a loan term of 10 months with a maturity date of 9 September 2026. (P-008)
14. The Repayment Schedule specifies "monthly interest payments with loan balance paid at the end", requiring monthly interest payments of $19,500 ($130,000 x 15% = $19,500). (P-008)
15. The Second Loan Agreement contains no collateral – it is an unsecured loan. (P-008)
16. The Addendum to the Second Loan Agreement states that the loan is "strictly coupled to bond VSP-3" and that "principal shall be paid out as the VSP-3 payments come in from selling the bond on the NER. Interest shall only apply on the amount of the principal paid to the borrower, prorated accordingly." (P-009)
17. The first monthly interest payment of $19,500 under the Second Loan Agreement was due on 9 December 2025. (P-008)
18. The Defendant has failed to make the monthly interest payment due on 9 December 2025, which is now 11 days overdue as of 20 December 2025. (P-008)
19. Section 3.1 of both Loan Agreements defines "Missed Payment" as an Event of Default: "The Borrower fails to make any scheduled payment in full by the due date as per the Repayment Schedule, without prior written agreement from the Lender for an extension or alternate arrangement." (P-010)
20. The Defendant has made zero payments on either loan since disbursement.
21. Section 3.3 of both Loan Agreements provides that upon an Event of Default, the Lender may (P-011):

• Accelerate the entire debt and declare all amounts immediately due and payable
• Assess late payment penalties of 1% per day on each overdue payment
• Seize collateral (for secured loans)
• Pursue legal action to recover amounts due plus legal fees

22. As of 20 December 2025, the Defendant is in default under both Loan Agreements and has not repaid any portion of the principal amounts totalling $180,000 ($50,000 + $130,000).

​

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

Breach of Contract​

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 both Loan Agreements under Section 7 of the Contracts Act by failing to fulfil contractual payment obligations. Specifically, the Defendant:

1. Failed to make the required monthly interest payment of $5,000 due on 23 November 2025 under the First Loan Agreement, in direct violation of Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of that agreement;
2. Failed to make the required monthly interest payment of $19,500 due on 9 December 2025 under the Second Loan Agreement, in direct violation of Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of that agreement;
3. Triggered Events of Default under Section 3.1 of both Loan Agreements by missing scheduled payments without any prior written agreement from Volt Bank for an extension or alternate arrangement;
4. Failed to repay the accelerated debt after Volt Bank exercised its contractual right to declare the entire remaining loan balances immediately due and payable pursuant to Section 3.3 of both agreements.

These failures constitute material breaches of both contractual obligations, entitling Volt Bank to the remedies provided under the Loan Agreements and the Contracts Act, including damages, seizure of collateral, and other equitable relief as specified in Section 3.3 of each agreement.

​

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

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

1. A Court Order immediately transferring ownership of Plot s079 to Volt Bank, Inc. pursuant to Section 3.3 of the First Loan Agreement, as the Defendant has forfeited all rights to the collateral upon Event of Default.

2. $207,995 in Compensatory Damages representing the principal and accrued interest and late payment fees from both Loan Agreements, Pursuant to Legal Damages Act, Section 4.
First Loan:

• Principal: $50,000
• Accrued Interest: $5,000
• Late Payment Penalty: $1,350
• Total: $56,350

Second Loan:

• Principal: $130,000
• Accrued Interest: $19,500
• Late Payment Penalty: $2,145
• Total: $151,645

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

4. 30% Legal Fees pursuant to Legal Damages Act, Section 9.

EVIDENCE​

Spoiler: P-001

See Volt Loan Agreement (Sagamo2008) 2025_10_30-1.pdf

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: P-004

Spoiler: P-005

See Volt Loan Agreement (Sagamo2008) 2025_11_4-1.pdf

Spoiler: P-006

Spoiler: P-007

Spoiler: P-008

Spoiler: P-009

Spoiler: P-010

Spoiler: P-011

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 20th day of December 2025

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[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 immediately freeze all assets and property of Defendant pending resolution of this matter.

Defendant has failed to make any monthly interest payments on either loan and is now in default on both agreements. Given the substantial debt owed and the risk that Defendant will transfer, hide, or dissipate assets to render himself judgment-proof and deprive Plaintiff of recovery, Plaintiff requests that this Court immediately freeze all of Defendant's assets, including:

1. Plot s079 and all other real estate plots owned by Defendant;
2. all money held by Defendant, including in-game balance, business balances, 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 Defendant's inventory, EnderChest, supporter chests, and any containers owned by Defendant anywhere in Redmont.

 

[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 immediately freeze all assets and property of Defendant pending resolution of this matter.

Defendant has failed to make any monthly interest payments on either loan and is now in default on both agreements. Given the substantial debt owed and the risk that Defendant will transfer, hide, or dissipate assets to render himself judgment-proof and deprive Plaintiff of recovery, Plaintiff requests that this Court immediately freeze all of Defendant's assets, including:

1. Plot s079 and all other real estate plots owned by Defendant;
2. all money held by Defendant, including in-game balance, business balances, 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 Defendant's inventory, EnderChest, supporter chests, and any containers owned by Defendant anywhere in Redmont.

Granted. The Court will direct DHS to secure assets of named Defendant.

 

[Muggy21]

Writ of Summons

@Sagamo20p8 , is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Volt Bank, Inc. v. Sagamo2008 [2025] FCR 135

Furthermore, in obedience with Rule 1.4, parties are advised that engaging in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of this Court or its proceedings may be held in Contempt of Court.

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.

 

[Muggy21]

Defense has not appeared. The Court will enlist a public defender.

 

[Muggy21]

The Federal Court has retained Talion & Partners LLC to defend Sagamo2008 before this Court.
They shall received $6,000 total for their services. The Court empowers T&P's counsel to act as a Public Defender.

 

[BlueRiverOtter]

See Volt Loan Agreement (Sagamo2008) 2025_10_30-1.pdf

See Volt Loan Agreement (Sagamo2008) 2025_11_4-1.pdf

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
Objection - Improper Evidence

The original contracts were in the form of a google doc (see P-002 and P-006). The Defense argues that replicas of documents are in-admissible in court (commonly called original-document rule in some other legal systems). As the Defense cannot get in touch with their client, there is no way for Defense's counsel nor this court to assess the authenticity of these contracts.

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
Motion to Reconsider

Granted. The Court will direct DHS to secure assets of named Defendant.

Firstly your our honor, there is no evidence of the Defendant's intention to "transfer, hide or deplete assets" . According to the ruling in [2025] FCR 131 the court ruled that a lawsuit itself does not carry the risk of an asset flight. There is no indication of Defendant's intent and the Plaintiff's reasoning can only be held as mere speculation. Therefore this emergency injunction is an undue limitation of the constitutional right to liberty.

Secondly, your honor Plaintiff did not specify only businesses organized as sole proprietorships in his emergency injunction he merely requested the balances of all companies owned by the Defendant. Not only are liabilities of incorporated entities typically kept separate from there owners but this injunction has the capacity to even apply to publicly traded corporations where the defendant has some ownership in.

Thirdly, your honor seizing all assets of the Defendant that are held in chests is a logistical nightmare for the Department of Homeland Security and is virtually impossible.

 

[ToadKing]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
Objection - Improper Evidence

The original contracts were in the form of a google doc (see P-002 and P-006). The Defense argues that replicas of documents are in-admissible in court (commonly called original-document rule in some other legal systems). As the Defense cannot get in touch with their client, there is no way for Defense's counsel nor this court to assess the authenticity of these contracts.

Response

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff respectfully opposes the Defence's objection as baseless.

I. THE EVIDENCE IS PROPER UNDER REDMONT LAW​

The Defence's invocation of an "original-document rule" from "some other legal systems" is entirely irrelevant. The only legal system that governs these proceedings is the law of the Commonwealth of Redmont. Under Redmont law and established court practice, PDF copies of contracts are standard, accepted, and proper forms of evidence.

Courts have had no issues with PDF versions being provided as evidence.
Recent examples include:

• Volt Bank, Inc v. .AstuteSundew823 [2025] FCR 125
• Volt Bank, Inc. v. .AstuteSundew823 [2025] FCR 119
• Muggy21 v. Riverardd [2025] DCR 96
• OakRidge Community Bank v. XinmjirGamingHQ [2025] DCR 106

The Defence provides no legal basis under Redmont law to deviate from this practice.

II. THE ORIGINAL GOOGLE DOCS ARE PROVIDED...​

The Defence's objection is undermined by the simple fact that Plaintiff has provided both the PDF copies and the original Google Doc links as evidence:

• P-002 Contains the original Google Doc link for the first loan agreement (2025_10_30-1):
  Volt Loan Agreement (Sagamo2008)
• P-006 Contains the original Google Doc link for the second loan agreement (2025_11_4-1):
  Volt Loan Agreement (Sagamo2008)

The Defence - and this Court - can access the original documents directly through these links to verify their authenticity. The Defence's claim that they "cannot assess the authenticity of these contracts" is demonstrably false and bordering on perjury, as they have direct access to the source documents.

 

[ToadKing]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
Motion to Reconsider


Firstly your our honor, there is no evidence of the Defendant's intention to "transfer, hide or deplete assets" . According to the ruling in [2025] FCR 131 the court ruled that a lawsuit itself does not carry the risk of an asset flight. There is no indication of Defendant's intent and the Plaintiff's reasoning can only be held as mere speculation. Therefore this emergency injunction is an undue limitation of the constitutional right to liberty.

Secondly, your honor Plaintiff did not specify only businesses organized as sole proprietorships in his emergency injunction he merely requested the balances of all companies owned by the Defendant. Not only are liabilities of incorporated entities typically kept separate from there owners but this injunction has the capacity to even apply to publicly traded corporations where the defendant has some ownership in.

Thirdly, your honor seizing all assets of the Defendant that are held in chests is a logistical nightmare for the Department of Homeland Security and is virtually impossible.

Response

Your Honour,

An emergency injunction of this exact nature has been accepted by this Court without issue. In Volt Bank, Inc. v. RealImza [2025] FCR 120, the Court granted an emergency injunction with largely identical language to freeze all plots, money held in balance or financial institutions, and items held in inventory, EnderChest, supporter chests, and containers. The presiding officer found no issue with these requests and granted them.

Per Court Orders, "the goal of an emergency injunction is to prevent harm." Defendant has defaulted on two separate loans totalling $219,710 and has made zero payments on either loan. Due to the substantial size of the outstanding debt, this injunction is necessary to prevent the very legitimate concern that Defendant will transfer, hide, or deplete assets to avoid judgment and render Plaintiff unable to recover.

The Court should deny the Defence's Motion to Reconsider and maintain the injunction.

 

[ToadKing]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
Objection - Improper Evidence

The original contracts were in the form of a google doc (see P-002 and P-006). The Defense argues that replicas of documents are in-admissible in court (commonly called original-document rule in some other legal systems). As the Defense cannot get in touch with their client, there is no way for Defense's counsel nor this court to assess the authenticity of these contracts.

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
Motion to Reconsider


Firstly your our honor, there is no evidence of the Defendant's intention to "transfer, hide or deplete assets" . According to the ruling in [2025] FCR 131 the court ruled that a lawsuit itself does not carry the risk of an asset flight. There is no indication of Defendant's intent and the Plaintiff's reasoning can only be held as mere speculation. Therefore this emergency injunction is an undue limitation of the constitutional right to liberty.

Secondly, your honor Plaintiff did not specify only businesses organized as sole proprietorships in his emergency injunction he merely requested the balances of all companies owned by the Defendant. Not only are liabilities of incorporated entities typically kept separate from there owners but this injunction has the capacity to even apply to publicly traded corporations where the defendant has some ownership in.

Thirdly, your honor seizing all assets of the Defendant that are held in chests is a logistical nightmare for the Department of Homeland Security and is virtually impossible.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honour,

Plaintiff objects to all filings submitted by BlueRiverOtter on the grounds that counsel is practising law beyond their specialised jurisdiction in direct violation of the Modern Legal Reform Act and is committing Legal Malpractice under the Criminal Code Act.

I. COUNSEL LACKS THE REQUIRED SPECIALISATIONS​

This case involves claims arising exclusively under the Contracts Act, specifically, Breach of Contract for failure to make required loan payments under two separate loan agreements.

BlueRiverOtter possesses only the Criminal and Property specialisations. (P-012) BlueRiverOtter does not possess the Contracts specialisation required to represent clients or file motions in the Federal Court for contract disputes.

Spoiler: P-012

​

II. LEGAL MALPRACTICE UNDER THE MODERN LEGAL REFORM ACT​

I have already made extensive comments on this exact matter - DeltaruneTMRW v. Culls [2025] FCR 111.

Section 8(2) of the Modern Legal Reform Act defines Legal Malpractice as:

(b) Definition: “Practicing law, representing clients, or filing cases in courts beyond one's qualification rank or specialized jurisdiction."

The Criminal Code Act codifies this offence with penalties of up to 300 Penalty Units and up to 4 months disbarment.

Part III, Section 12:

12 - Legal Malpractice
Offence Type: Indictable
Penalty: Up to 300 Penalty Units; Up to 4 months disbarment.
A person commits an offence if the person:
(a) practices law, represents clients, or files cases in courts beyond their qualification rank or specialised jurisdiction.
Relevant Law: Act of Congress - Modern Legal Reform Act

Section 4(3) of the Modern Legal Reform Act explicitly limits Barristers to practice "within their specialization(s)" when appearing before the Federal Court. BlueRiverOtter is practising outside his specialised jurisdiction.

​

III. PATTERN OF REPEATED VIOLATIONS​

This is not an isolated incident. BlueRiverOtter has systematically practised law in Federal Court contract cases without the required Contracts specialisation:

1. Superwoops v. Red Nose Capital [2025] FCR 136 - Contracts case

BlueRiverOtter has made two legal filings:

1. Objection - Improper Evidence
2. Motion to Amend

2. IgnitedTnT v. LeafLuxury LLC [2025] FCR 131 - Contract case

BlueRiverOtter made 15 legal filings:

1. Case Filing
2. OBJECTION - Breach of Procedure
3. OBJECTION - Breach of Procedure & OBJECTION - Perjury
4. OBJECTION - PERJURY
5. OBJECTION - PERJURY
6. MOTION TO COMPEL
7. Objection - Relevance
8. Objection - Breach of Procedure
9. Objection - Ambigous
10. Objection - Relevance
11. Motion to Emergency Injunction
12. Motion to Reconsider
13. OPENING STATEMENT
14. Motion to Amend

From 11 December 2025, for nearly 1 month, BlueRiverOtter has made 19 legal filings across multiple Federal Court contract cases without possessing the required Contracts specialisation. Through these filings, BlueRiverOtter has engaged in every form of conduct prohibited: "practicing law, representing clients, or filing cases", and has demonstrated not mere oversight, but a systematic and deliberate disregard for the Modern Legal Reform Act's mandatory specialisation requirements.

​

IV. REQUESTED RELIEF​

Due to the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff requests this Court:

1. Strike all filings submitted by BlueRiverOtter in this case, including the Objection and Motion to Reconsider;
2. Disqualify BlueRiverOtter from representing the Defendant in this matter;
3. Find BlueRiverOtter in contempt of court for his egregious and systematic violation of the specialisation requirements;
4. Issue a conduct strike to BlueRiverOtter pursuant to Section 3 of the Modern Legal Reform (Conduct Strikes) Act, as his pattern of practising law across multiple Federal Court cases without the required specialisation objectively reflects adversely on the legal profession;
5. Refer this matter to the Department of Justice for prosecution of Legal Malpractice under the Criminal Code Act.

 

[BlueRiverOtter]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honour,

Plaintiff objects to all filings submitted by BlueRiverOtter on the grounds that counsel is practising law beyond their specialised jurisdiction in direct violation of the Modern Legal Reform Act and is committing Legal Malpractice under the Criminal Code Act.

I. COUNSEL LACKS THE REQUIRED SPECIALISATIONS​

This case involves claims arising exclusively under the Contracts Act, specifically, Breach of Contract for failure to make required loan payments under two separate loan agreements.

BlueRiverOtter possesses only the Criminal and Property specialisations. (P-012) BlueRiverOtter does not possess the Contracts specialisation required to represent clients or file motions in the Federal Court for contract disputes.

Spoiler: P-012

View attachment 70960

​

II. LEGAL MALPRACTICE UNDER THE MODERN LEGAL REFORM ACT​

I have already made extensive comments on this exact matter - DeltaruneTMRW v. Culls [2025] FCR 111.

Section 8(2) of the Modern Legal Reform Act defines Legal Malpractice as:

The Criminal Code Act codifies this offence with penalties of up to 300 Penalty Units and up to 4 months disbarment.

Part III, Section 12:

Section 4(3) of the Modern Legal Reform Act explicitly limits Barristers to practice "within their specialization(s)" when appearing before the Federal Court. BlueRiverOtter is practising outside his specialised jurisdiction.

​

III. PATTERN OF REPEATED VIOLATIONS​

This is not an isolated incident. BlueRiverOtter has systematically practised law in Federal Court contract cases without the required Contracts specialisation:

1. Superwoops v. Red Nose Capital [2025] FCR 136 - Contracts case

BlueRiverOtter has made two legal filings:

1. Objection - Improper Evidence
2. Motion to Amend

2. IgnitedTnT v. LeafLuxury LLC [2025] FCR 131 - Contract case

BlueRiverOtter made 15 legal filings:

1. Case Filing
2. OBJECTION - Breach of Procedure
3. OBJECTION - Breach of Procedure & OBJECTION - Perjury
4. OBJECTION - PERJURY
5. OBJECTION - PERJURY
6. MOTION TO COMPEL
7. Objection - Relevance
8. Objection - Breach of Procedure
9. Objection - Ambigous
10. Objection - Relevance
11. Motion to Emergency Injunction
12. Motion to Reconsider
13. OPENING STATEMENT
14. Motion to Amend

From 11 December 2025, for nearly 1 month, BlueRiverOtter has made 19 legal filings across multiple Federal Court contract cases without possessing the required Contracts specialisation. Through these filings, BlueRiverOtter has engaged in every form of conduct prohibited: "practicing law, representing clients, or filing cases", and has demonstrated not mere oversight, but a systematic and deliberate disregard for the Modern Legal Reform Act's mandatory specialisation requirements.

​

IV. REQUESTED RELIEF​

Due to the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff requests this Court:

1. Strike all filings submitted by BlueRiverOtter in this case, including the Objection and Motion to Reconsider;
2. Disqualify BlueRiverOtter from representing the Defendant in this matter;
3. Find BlueRiverOtter in contempt of court for his egregious and systematic violation of the specialisation requirements;
4. Issue a conduct strike to BlueRiverOtter pursuant to Section 3 of the Modern Legal Reform (Conduct Strikes) Act, as his pattern of practising law across multiple Federal Court cases without the required specialisation objectively reflects adversely on the legal profession;
5. Refer this matter to the Department of Justice for prosecution of Legal Malpractice under the Criminal Code Act.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
Objection - Perjury

I am personally shocked by the fact that Plaintiff's counsel has accused me of blatant legal qualification fraud. This allegation is incredibly false (see image attached). Due to opposing counsel committing perjury by accusing me of such a haniuous and unethical violation of the law I request that ToadKing be issued a conduct strike for his actions.

 

[ToadKing]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
Objection - Perjury

I am personally shocked by the fact that Plaintiff's counsel has accused me of blatant legal qualification fraud. This allegation is incredibly false (see image attached). Due to opposing counsel committing perjury by accusing me of such a haniuous and unethical violation of the law I request that ToadKing be issued a conduct strike for his actions.

Response

P-012 was the result I received from running the command "/about BlueRiverOtter".
I joined the server at 00:13 UTC and ran the command twice. Once at 00:14 UTC and 00:18 UTC

Spoiler: 00:18 UTC

Spoiler: 00:14 UTC

I clearly wouldn't be making a claim if it were unfounded.

If I'm incorrect, then I withdraw the objection, but I can only state what I saw

 

[BlueRiverOtter]

Your honor, Secretary of the Department of Education Scassany has sent the laws for when i passed by contracts exam.

 

[ToadKing]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honour,

Plaintiff objects to all filings submitted by BlueRiverOtter on the grounds that counsel is practising law beyond their specialised jurisdiction in direct violation of the Modern Legal Reform Act and is committing Legal Malpractice under the Criminal Code Act.

I. COUNSEL LACKS THE REQUIRED SPECIALISATIONS​

This case involves claims arising exclusively under the Contracts Act, specifically, Breach of Contract for failure to make required loan payments under two separate loan agreements.

BlueRiverOtter possesses only the Criminal and Property specialisations. (P-012) BlueRiverOtter does not possess the Contracts specialisation required to represent clients or file motions in the Federal Court for contract disputes.

Spoiler: P-012

View attachment 70960

​

II. LEGAL MALPRACTICE UNDER THE MODERN LEGAL REFORM ACT​

I have already made extensive comments on this exact matter - DeltaruneTMRW v. Culls [2025] FCR 111.

Section 8(2) of the Modern Legal Reform Act defines Legal Malpractice as:

The Criminal Code Act codifies this offence with penalties of up to 300 Penalty Units and up to 4 months disbarment.

Part III, Section 12:

Section 4(3) of the Modern Legal Reform Act explicitly limits Barristers to practice "within their specialization(s)" when appearing before the Federal Court. BlueRiverOtter is practising outside his specialised jurisdiction.

​

III. PATTERN OF REPEATED VIOLATIONS​

This is not an isolated incident. BlueRiverOtter has systematically practised law in Federal Court contract cases without the required Contracts specialisation:

1. Superwoops v. Red Nose Capital [2025] FCR 136 - Contracts case

BlueRiverOtter has made two legal filings:

1. Objection - Improper Evidence
2. Motion to Amend

2. IgnitedTnT v. LeafLuxury LLC [2025] FCR 131 - Contract case

BlueRiverOtter made 15 legal filings:

1. Case Filing
2. OBJECTION - Breach of Procedure
3. OBJECTION - Breach of Procedure & OBJECTION - Perjury
4. OBJECTION - PERJURY
5. OBJECTION - PERJURY
6. MOTION TO COMPEL
7. Objection - Relevance
8. Objection - Breach of Procedure
9. Objection - Ambigous
10. Objection - Relevance
11. Motion to Emergency Injunction
12. Motion to Reconsider
13. OPENING STATEMENT
14. Motion to Amend

From 11 December 2025, for nearly 1 month, BlueRiverOtter has made 19 legal filings across multiple Federal Court contract cases without possessing the required Contracts specialisation. Through these filings, BlueRiverOtter has engaged in every form of conduct prohibited: "practicing law, representing clients, or filing cases", and has demonstrated not mere oversight, but a systematic and deliberate disregard for the Modern Legal Reform Act's mandatory specialisation requirements.

​

IV. REQUESTED RELIEF​

Due to the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff requests this Court:

1. Strike all filings submitted by BlueRiverOtter in this case, including the Objection and Motion to Reconsider;
2. Disqualify BlueRiverOtter from representing the Defendant in this matter;
3. Find BlueRiverOtter in contempt of court for his egregious and systematic violation of the specialisation requirements;
4. Issue a conduct strike to BlueRiverOtter pursuant to Section 3 of the Modern Legal Reform (Conduct Strikes) Act, as his pattern of practising law across multiple Federal Court cases without the required specialisation objectively reflects adversely on the legal profession;
5. Refer this matter to the Department of Justice for prosecution of Legal Malpractice under the Criminal Code Act.

Withdrawn.

I can't attest why the /about command gave me those results.
Clearly, the information was incorrect.

 

[BlueRiverOtter]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
Objection - Perjury

I am personally shocked by the fact that Plaintiff's counsel has accused me of blatant legal qualification fraud. This allegation is incredibly false (see image attached). Due to opposing counsel committing perjury by accusing me of such a haniuous and unethical violation of the law I request that ToadKing be issued a conduct strike for his actions.

Perjury objection withdrawn, I do not believe ToadKing intentionally made a false statement to this court however i will note that he should probably double check with the DoE in the future before accusing someone of legal qualification fraud lest he cause a bunch of needless drama and piss oppoising counsel off.

 

[BlueRiverOtter]

II. THE ORIGINAL GOOGLE DOCS ARE PROVIDED...​

The Defence's objection is undermined by the simple fact that Plaintiff has provided both the PDF copies and the original Google Doc links as evidence:

• P-002 Contains the original Google Doc link for the first loan agreement (2025_10_30-1):
  Volt Loan Agreement (Sagamo2008)
• P-006 Contains the original Google Doc link for the second loan agreement (2025_11_4-1):
  Volt Loan Agreement (Sagamo2008)

The Defence - and this Court - can access the original documents directly through these links to verify their authenticity. The Defence's claim that they "cannot assess the authenticity of these contracts" is demonstrably false and bordering on perjury, as they have direct access to the source documents.

Due to the second part of his response, Defense withdraws the responded improper evidence objection

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
Objection - Improper Evidence

Plaintiff, entered multiple excerpts of the contract (exhibits P-003 to P-004 and exhibits P-008 to P-011), despite entering the original contract into evidence. These excerpts serve no other purpose other then to have the capacity to present mild confusion to both parties and this court.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
Objection - Improper Evidence

There seems to be a gap in the chat logs in P-002, the last message has the timestamp 22:51, and first image of the second has the timestamp 23:20.

[/objection]

Answer to Complaint

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

Volt Bank, inc
Plaintiff

v.

Sagamo2008
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defense AFFIRMS fact 1.
2. The Defense AFFIRMS fact 2.
3. The Defense AFFIRMS fact 3.
4. The Defense AFFIRMS fact 4.
5. The Defense AFFIRMS fact 5.
6. The Defense AFFIRMS fact 6 NOTING that the provisions listing plot s079 as collateral itself were in the loan summary and provisions regarding collateral were mainly in Section 2.4.
7. The Defense AFFIRMS fact 7.
8. The Defense NEITHER CONFIRMS NOR DENIES fact 8 at present.
9. The Defense AFFIRMS fact 9.
10. The Defense AFFIRMS fact 10.
11. The Defense AFFIRMS fact 11.
12. The Defense AFFIRMS fact 12.
13. The Defense AFFIRMS fact 13.
14. The Defense AFFIRMS fact 14.
15. The Defense AFFIRMS fact 15.
16. The Defense AFFIRMS fact 16.
17. The Defense AFFIRMS fact 17.
18. The Defense NEITHER CONFIRMS NOR DENIES fact 18.
19. The Defense AFFIRMS fact 19.
20. The Defense NEITHER CONFIRMS NOR DENIES fact 20.
21. The Defense AFFIRMS fact 21.
22. The Defense NEITHER CONFIRMS NOR DENIES fact 22.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Defense offers no defenses at current but intends to amend there answer during the course of discovery.

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 3rd day of January 2026

 

[BlueRiverOtter]

Due to the second part of his response, Defense withdraws the responded improper evidence objection

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
Objection - Improper Evidence

Plaintiff, entered multiple excerpts of the contract (exhibits P-003 to P-004 and exhibits P-008 to P-011), despite entering the original contract into evidence. These excerpts serve no other purpose other then to have the capacity to present mild confusion to both parties and this court.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
Objection - Improper Evidence

There seems to be a gap in the chat logs in P-002, the last message has the timestamp 22:51, and first image of the second has the timestamp 23:20.

Objection

Answer to Complaint

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

Volt Bank, inc
Plaintiff

v.

Sagamo2008
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defense AFFIRMS fact 1.
2. The Defense AFFIRMS fact 2.
3. The Defense AFFIRMS fact 3.
4. The Defense AFFIRMS fact 4.
5. The Defense AFFIRMS fact 5.
6. The Defense AFFIRMS fact 6 NOTING that the provisions listing plot s079 as collateral itself were in the loan summary and provisions regarding collateral were mainly in Section 2.4.
7. The Defense AFFIRMS fact 7.
8. The Defense NEITHER CONFIRMS NOR DENIES fact 8 at present.
9. The Defense AFFIRMS fact 9.
10. The Defense AFFIRMS fact 10.
11. The Defense AFFIRMS fact 11.
12. The Defense AFFIRMS fact 12.
13. The Defense AFFIRMS fact 13.
14. The Defense AFFIRMS fact 14.
15. The Defense AFFIRMS fact 15.
16. The Defense AFFIRMS fact 16.
17. The Defense AFFIRMS fact 17.
18. The Defense NEITHER CONFIRMS NOR DENIES fact 18.
19. The Defense AFFIRMS fact 19.
20. The Defense NEITHER CONFIRMS NOR DENIES fact 20.
21. The Defense AFFIRMS fact 21.
22. The Defense NEITHER CONFIRMS NOR DENIES fact 22.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Defense offers no defenses at current but intends to amend there answer during the course of discovery.

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 3rd day of January 2026

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
Motion to Amend

Remove objection wrapper around the answer to the complaint.

 

[ToadKing]

Due to the second part of his response, Defense withdraws the responded improper evidence objection

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
Objection - Improper Evidence

Plaintiff, entered multiple excerpts of the contract (exhibits P-003 to P-004 and exhibits P-008 to P-011), despite entering the original contract into evidence. These excerpts serve no other purpose other then to have the capacity to present mild confusion to both parties and this court.

Response

Your Honour,

Respectfully, if the Defence is confused by specific sections of contract text being directly screenshotted and highlighted for the Court's convenience, the Plaintiff questions the Defence's basic reading comprehension. Providing contract excerpts alongside the full contract is standard practice for this legal counsel, as it assists the Court by directing attention to the specific provisions relevant to each factual allegation - it does not cause confusion to any reasonable person.

This exact evidence format was accepted without issue by this very same presiding officer in Volt Bank, Inc. v. .AstuteSundew823 [2025] FCR 119 and Volt Bank, Inc v. .AstuteSundew823 [2025] FCR 125. The Defence provides no legal basis to deviate from this established practice.

Unless the Defense is attempting to insult this presiding officer's ability to read and comprehend evidence, this objection is frivolous and should be overruled immediately.

 

[Muggy21]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
Objection - Improper Evidence

The original contracts were in the form of a google doc (see P-002 and P-006). The Defense argues that replicas of documents are in-admissible in court (commonly called original-document rule in some other legal systems). As the Defense cannot get in touch with their client, there is no way for Defense's counsel nor this court to assess the authenticity of these contracts.

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
Motion to Reconsider


Firstly your our honor, there is no evidence of the Defendant's intention to "transfer, hide or deplete assets" . According to the ruling in [2025] FCR 131 the court ruled that a lawsuit itself does not carry the risk of an asset flight. There is no indication of Defendant's intent and the Plaintiff's reasoning can only be held as mere speculation. Therefore this emergency injunction is an undue limitation of the constitutional right to liberty.

Secondly, your honor Plaintiff did not specify only businesses organized as sole proprietorships in his emergency injunction he merely requested the balances of all companies owned by the Defendant. Not only are liabilities of incorporated entities typically kept separate from there owners but this injunction has the capacity to even apply to publicly traded corporations where the defendant has some ownership in.

Thirdly, your honor seizing all assets of the Defendant that are held in chests is a logistical nightmare for the Department of Homeland Security and is virtually impossible.

Objection overruled - No basis in law.

Motion Denied. Plaintiff has shown a breach of contract exists where collateral may be divested. To your second point, this is incoherent and disregarded. Sagamo2008 is a citizen not a company. Last point is academic, DHS already froze assets.

 

[Muggy21]

Response

Your Honour,

Respectfully, if the Defence is confused by specific sections of contract text being directly screenshotted and highlighted for the Court's convenience, the Plaintiff questions the Defence's basic reading comprehension. Providing contract excerpts alongside the full contract is standard practice for this legal counsel, as it assists the Court by directing attention to the specific provisions relevant to each factual allegation - it does not cause confusion to any reasonable person.

This exact evidence format was accepted without issue by this very same presiding officer in Volt Bank, Inc. v. .AstuteSundew823 [2025] FCR 119 and Volt Bank, Inc v. .AstuteSundew823 [2025] FCR 125. The Defence provides no legal basis to deviate from this established practice.

Unless the Defense is attempting to insult this presiding officer's ability to read and comprehend evidence, this objection is frivolous and should be overruled immediately.

Overruled, I can indeed read. It's clear that the images in question appear to arise from the pdf-contract.

 

[ToadKing]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
Objection - Improper Evidence

There seems to be a gap in the chat logs in P-002, the last message has the timestamp 22:51, and first image of the second has the timestamp 23:20.

Response

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff was going to wait until discovery to submit this evidence, as they had only just generated a full transcript of the conversation between Plaintiff and Defendant, but this renders the objection moot.

Spoiler: P-013

Tickety | #1 Discord Ticket Bot

Discover Tickety, the ultimate Discord ticket bot with a user-friendly web dashboard, advanced ticket tool and powerful application feature.

tickety.top

 

[ToadKing]

Motion

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

Your Honour,

Plaintiff moves for summary judgment as there are no disputed material facts.

The Defendant has affirmed all material facts regarding the loan agreements in their Answer to Complaint: execution of both loan agreements (Facts 1-2, 9-11), all loan terms including principal amounts, interest rates, repayment schedules, and collateral (Facts 3-7, 12-17), the coupling to VSP-3 bond (Fact 16), the definition of Event of Default (Fact 19), and the remedies available upon default (Fact 21).

The only facts Defendant "neither confirms nor denies" are payment performance - specifically that payments are overdue (Facts 8, 18), that zero payments have been made (Fact 20), and that Defendant is in default (Fact 22).

These facts are proven by the complete ticket transcript between Volt Bank and Defendant (P-013), which establishes the following:

1. On 08 December 2025, Plaintiff notified Defendant that the interest payment was due "13k interest payment due tommorow".
2. 09 December 2025, the following day, Plaintiff stated "you need to urgently pay the interest "
3. On 10 December 2025, Volt Bank clarified the amount: "i'm sorry I was wrong it's 19.5k"
4. Defendant's response on 13 December, 2025, constitutes an admission of non-payment and insolvency: "I don't have much cash on hand. I recently had to buy back shares of the ETF only to sell them again, which left me short of cash. I'm not sure if it would be possible to refinance the debt with more debt this month."
5. On 13 December 2025, Volt Bank provided a complete accounting: "alr so these are ur current debts: 5k interest from the s079 loan 19.5k interest on the 130 unsecured loan + 286 dollars per day in late payment (currently 1144) pls pay as soon as possible otherwise i'm forced to sue u"
6. Rather than paying the overdue interest, Defendant attempted to negotiate refinancing with inadequate collateral, which Plaintiff rejected.
7. On 20 December 2025, Plaintiff formally accelerated both loans: "I hereby declare the loan balance of both loans immediately due and payable persuant to Section 3.3."

The Defence provides no legal or factual defence, explicitly stating "The Defence offers no defences at present but intends to amend their answer during the course of discovery." Furthermore, Defense counsel admits they "cannot get in touch with their client," making any meaningful defence impossible to develop.

All elements of breach of contract are proven by Defendant's own admissions and supplied evidence:
1. Valid contracts existed (affirmed Facts 1-7, 9-17);
2. Plaintiff disbursed the loans (affirmed Facts 3, 12);
3. Defendant failed to make payments when due (proven by P-013 transcript showing Defendant's admission of inability to pay), and damages are calculable ($219,710);
4. The first loan's payment was due 23 November 2025 (affirmed Fact 7) and remains unpaid 27+ days later (P-013);
5. The second loan's payment was due 09 December 2025 (affirmed Fact 17) and remains unpaid 11+ days later (P-013);
6. Plaintiff properly accelerated both debts on 20 December 2025, pursuant to Section 3.3 of the loan agreements (affirmed Fact 21) (P-013).

There is no genuine dispute of material fact, no defense exists, and nothing can be gained by prolonging this lawsuit when the Defendant has admitted insolvency and counsel cannot contact their client.

Plaintiff requests this Court grant the full prayers for relief in this case.

 

[BlueRiverOtter]

Brief

The Defense informs this court that the Defense has been able to contact the Defendant since 10:57 PM, on the third of January EST.

 

[Muggy21]

Brief

The Defense informs this court that the Defense has been able to contact the Defendant since 10:57 PM, on the third of January EST.

Nice, feel free to respond to the Motion of Summary Judgement within 27 Hours

 

[ToadKing]

Nice, feel free to respond to the Motion of Summary Judgement within 27 Hours

Your Honour,

27 hours have now elapsed. The Defence has offered no response. Plaintiff requests a ruling on the Motion.

 

[Muggy21]

Your Honour,

27 hours have now elapsed. The Defence has offered no response. Plaintiff requests a ruling on the Motion.

Do you have proof that Volt Bank gave the funds to Defendant? If so, please attach it.

 

[ToadKing]

Do you have proof that Volt Bank gave the funds to Defendant? If so, please attach it.

Plaintiff will endeavour to provide the evidence, however noting that the Defendant in P-013 made no issue of receiving the money.

One could readonably infer from their response, "I'm not sure if it would be possible to refinance the debt with more debt this month," that they received the principal amount from the loans, and are indebted to Plaintiff.

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

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

Your Honour,

Plaintiff moves for summary judgment as there are no disputed material facts.

The Defendant has affirmed all material facts regarding the loan agreements in their Answer to Complaint: execution of both loan agreements (Facts 1-2, 9-11), all loan terms including principal amounts, interest rates, repayment schedules, and collateral (Facts 3-7, 12-17), the coupling to VSP-3 bond (Fact 16), the definition of Event of Default (Fact 19), and the remedies available upon default (Fact 21).

The only facts Defendant "neither confirms nor denies" are payment performance - specifically that payments are overdue (Facts 8, 18), that zero payments have been made (Fact 20), and that Defendant is in default (Fact 22).

These facts are proven by the complete ticket transcript between Volt Bank and Defendant (P-013), which establishes the following:

1. On 08 December 2025, Plaintiff notified Defendant that the interest payment was due "13k interest payment due tommorow".
2. 09 December 2025, the following day, Plaintiff stated "you need to urgently pay the interest "
3. On 10 December 2025, Volt Bank clarified the amount: "i'm sorry I was wrong it's 19.5k"
4. Defendant's response on 13 December, 2025, constitutes an admission of non-payment and insolvency: "I don't have much cash on hand. I recently had to buy back shares of the ETF only to sell them again, which left me short of cash. I'm not sure if it would be possible to refinance the debt with more debt this month."
5. On 13 December 2025, Volt Bank provided a complete accounting: "alr so these are ur current debts: 5k interest from the s079 loan 19.5k interest on the 130 unsecured loan + 286 dollars per day in late payment (currently 1144) pls pay as soon as possible otherwise i'm forced to sue u"
6. Rather than paying the overdue interest, Defendant attempted to negotiate refinancing with inadequate collateral, which Plaintiff rejected.
7. On 20 December 2025, Plaintiff formally accelerated both loans: "I hereby declare the loan balance of both loans immediately due and payable persuant to Section 3.3."

The Defence provides no legal or factual defence, explicitly stating "The Defence offers no defences at present but intends to amend their answer during the course of discovery." Furthermore, Defense counsel admits they "cannot get in touch with their client," making any meaningful defence impossible to develop.

All elements of breach of contract are proven by Defendant's own admissions and supplied evidence:
1. Valid contracts existed (affirmed Facts 1-7, 9-17);
2. Plaintiff disbursed the loans (affirmed Facts 3, 12);
3. Defendant failed to make payments when due (proven by P-013 transcript showing Defendant's admission of inability to pay), and damages are calculable ($219,710);
4. The first loan's payment was due 23 November 2025 (affirmed Fact 7) and remains unpaid 27+ days later (P-013);
5. The second loan's payment was due 09 December 2025 (affirmed Fact 17) and remains unpaid 11+ days later (P-013);
6. Plaintiff properly accelerated both debts on 20 December 2025, pursuant to Section 3.3 of the loan agreements (affirmed Fact 21) (P-013).

There is no genuine dispute of material fact, no defense exists, and nothing can be gained by prolonging this lawsuit when the Defendant has admitted insolvency and counsel cannot contact their client.

Plaintiff requests this Court grant the full prayers for relief in this case.

Didn't see P-013.
Motion granted. Court will be in recess pending verdict.

 

[Muggy21]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order - in re: Assets of Sagamo2008

On issuance of a verdict in [2025] FCR 135, the Court does modify its injunction for assets originally owned by Sagamo2008.

1) The Court releases plot S079 from all injunctions. No other plot owned by Defendant may be transferred without lawful order of this Court, or the Supreme Court on appeal.
2) All money held by Defendant, in any financial institution or held as cash-equivalents within Redmont shall be frozen.
3) All valuable items in all inventories, or containers with inventories accessable to Sagamo2008 anywhere in Redmont.

The Department of Homeland Security shall maintain its current posture, this amended Order does not require additional seizure actions beyond what was already completed on December 20th, 2025.


EI #2 in [2025] FCR 135 is revoked and amended as aforementioned.

So ordered,
Judge Mug.

 

[Muggy21]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Verdict - Volt Bank, Inc. v. Sagamo2008 [2025] FCR 135

Summary of Controversy

Plaintiff, a registered bank, issued a loan to Defendant in the total amount of $180,000. On reading of the loan agreements, parties have agreed to interest charges and late payment penalties. Defendant did not appear before this Court and the Court's appointed counselor represented Defendant's interests.


Order of the Court
The Court finds the Complaint in good form and the underlying credit agreements generally lawful, and thus enforceable. The interest rate complies with the usury requirements outlined under the Criminal Code Act. The Court notes that S079, the collateral from Agreement #1 was sold at auction for $21,000 in October, thus the Court will proceed with that valuation and decrease the compensatory award accordingly.

On review of the record and Motion for Summary Judgement, the Court adjudicates the controversy as follows.


1. In Compensatory Damages, the Court awards Volt Bank $186,995.00
2. The Court orders the DCT to transfer ownership of S079 to the custodian for Volt Bank, Omegabiebel.
3. In additional Compensatory Damages, for accrued interest through January, 20th, 2026, the Court awards Volt Bank $28,049.25.
4. In Legal Fees, permitted under the Legal Damages Act, the Court awards Counselor for Volt Bank 20% of total damages. The Court awards ToadKing__ $43,010.


So ordered,
Judge Mug