Lawsuit: Adjourned Wayne_Kerr12 v. Beloitte [2026] DCR 38

[dodrio3]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Wayne_Kerr12 (Represented by Lex Titanum)
Plaintiff

v.

Beloitte
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On the 3rd March 2026, the Plaintiff reached out to the defendant to enquire about services (P-002). The next day, the defendant and plaintiff agreed to a $10,000 retainer, and the Plaintiff paid the fee of $10,000 before the defendant had completed any work (P-003). This agreement was under the pretext that the defendant would do $10,000 worth of work for the fee.

On the 4th of March, the defendant completed one contract for the defendant, but it was agreed that no funds would be subtracted from the retainer due to an alternate agreement(P-004).

On both the 15th, 16th and 30th of March, the Plaintiff reached out to the defendant enquiring about more work that needed to be done, but was met with no response from the defendant(P-005).

I. PARTIES

1. Wayne_Kerr12 - Plaintiff
2. Beloitte - Defendant
3. Musa096 - Beloitte Managing Partner (P-01)
4. nick (XDBH)- Beloitte Managing Partner (P-01)

II. FACTS

1. On the 3rd of March, the Plaintiff reached out to the Defendant, requesting services. (P-002)
2. On the 4th of March, the Defendant Agreed to a $10,000 retainer. (P-003)
3. The Plaintiff paid the Defendant $10,000 for the retainer on the 4th March. (P-003)
4. The Defendant agreed not to take any money from the retainer for the contract completed on the 4th March (P-004)
5. On the 15th,16th and 30th of March, the Plaintiff contacted the defendant, asking about more work and got no response (P-005)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. On March 4th 2026, the Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a legally binding agreement, where the defendant agreed to provide $10,000 worth of work to the plaintiff in a retainer. On March 4th 2026, the Plaintiff paid the full sum of $10,000. The Defendant breached this contract by failing to provide any services.
2. The Defendants' conduct demonstrates a “substantial departure from acceptable standards of behaviour" by accepting a large sum of money and not completing the work that they agreed upon. This qualified the plaintiff to punitive damages against the defendant.

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

1. $10,000 In Compensationary Damages for the Fee paid for unfulfilled services
2. $15,000 In Punitive Damages for the outrageous actions of the defendant
3. 30% of the cases value or $3,000 which ever is higher, in legal fees paid to Lex Titanium

(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 20th day of April 2026

P-001

P-002

P-003

P-004

P-005

 

[dodrio3]

Proof Of Representation

 

[Franciscus]

Writ of Summons

xbdh (@nick) is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Wayne_Kerr12 v. Beloitte [2026] DCR 38.

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.

 

[Franciscus]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER — APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

Consistent with the Public Defense Policy, the Court orders that the public defender program shall represent the defendant.

The Public Defender program shall appear within 72 hours. In that appearance, the Public Defender program shall provide to this Court the name of the individual who will be defending the Defendant.

Should no individuals in the Public Defender program have reasonable availability to take on this case, a statement to that effect shall be provided instead. In such case, or should no suitable response from the public defender program be had in the allotted time, the Court order the Court Clerk solicit private law firms to provide public defense (see: Public Defense Policy, “The Court Clerk… will arrange for quotes from private law firms”).

In the District Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

 

[Franciscus]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER — APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

Consistent with the Public Defense Policy, the Court orders that the public defender program shall represent the defendant.

The Public Defender program shall appear within 72 hours. In that appearance, the Public Defender program shall provide to this Court the name of the individual who will be defending the Defendant.

Should no individuals in the Public Defender program have reasonable availability to take on this case, a statement to that effect shall be provided instead. In such case, or should no suitable response from the public defender program be had in the allotted time, the Court order the Court Clerk solicit private law firms to provide public defense (see: Public Defense Policy, “The Court Clerk… will arrange for quotes from private law firms”).

In the District Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER — APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

The Court sees no response from the Public Defender Program. In line with the Court's prior order, we will proceed to find a public defender in other ways.

In line with the Public Defence Policy, The Court Clerk ( @PurpleBG ) is ordered to, within 48 hours, reach out to and solicit quotes from private law firms and private solo law practitioners to serve as public defender in this case. The Court Clerk may seek the assistance of any Magistrate in soliciting bids, but the primary responsibility shall be on the Court Clerk.

No bid under $4,500 shall be accepted, in line with the Public Defence Policy. The Court Clerk shall accept the first bid of a competent and qualified lawyer at $4,500 and assign them to this case; if none are received, the Court Clerk shall, after 72 hours have elapsed from the time of this order, notify the Court of bids received and assign the lowest qualified and competent bid to this case as public defender, provided that such a bid is at or above the minimum price of $4,500. If two or more bids are at the same, lowest eligible amount, the Court Clerk shall pick one according to the Court Clerk’s best judgement and assign the winner to this case.

If no bids by a qualified and competent lawyer that meet the price criteria are received within 72 hours of the issuance of this Order, the Court Clerk shall inform the Court of the names of the firms and individuals whom the Court Clerk has reached out to during that time. In such an event, the District Court will randomly pick and assign a public defender not on leave of absence to this case.

In the District Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

 

[Dartanboy]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER — APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

The Court sees no response from the Public Defender Program. In line with the Court's prior order, we will proceed to find a public defender in other ways.

In line with the Public Defence Policy, The Court Clerk ( @PurpleBG ) is ordered to, within 48 hours, reach out to and solicit quotes from private law firms and private solo law practitioners to serve as public defender in this case. The Court Clerk may seek the assistance of any Magistrate in soliciting bids, but the primary responsibility shall be on the Court Clerk.

No bid under $4,500 shall be accepted, in line with the Public Defence Policy. The Court Clerk shall accept the first bid of a competent and qualified lawyer at $4,500 and assign them to this case; if none are received, the Court Clerk shall, after 72 hours have elapsed from the time of this order, notify the Court of bids received and assign the lowest qualified and competent bid to this case as public defender, provided that such a bid is at or above the minimum price of $4,500. If two or more bids are at the same, lowest eligible amount, the Court Clerk shall pick one according to the Court Clerk’s best judgement and assign the winner to this case.

If no bids by a qualified and competent lawyer that meet the price criteria are received within 72 hours of the issuance of this Order, the Court Clerk shall inform the Court of the names of the firms and individuals whom the Court Clerk has reached out to during that time. In such an event, the District Court will randomly pick and assign a public defender not on leave of absence to this case.

In the District Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

Your honor,

I apologize for the delay, as you know I was at a wedding this weekend IRL, and the Public Defender I assigned to appear has failed their duty.

If you would allow it, I can reassign this case.

 

[Franciscus]

Your honor,

I apologize for the delay, as you know I was at a wedding this weekend IRL, and the Public Defender I assigned to appear has failed their duty.

If you would allow it, I can reassign this case.

If no valid bids have thus far been received, sure. If there has been someone who has made a qualifying bid, the Court will let them represent here. Please coordinate with the Court Clerk on this point.

 

[dodrio3]

If no valid bids have thus far been received, sure. If there has been someone who has made a qualifying bid, the Court will let them represent here. Please coordinate with the Court Clerk on this point.

Would it be possible to put another time limit on this matter to ensure that the court is able to provide a speedy trial.

 

[Franciscus]

Would it be possible to put another time limit on this matter to ensure that the court is able to provide a speedy trial.

None is necessary. There is already a time limit implicit in the order to the Court Clerk, from whom we should hear by tomorrow at 2:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time.

 

[Franciscus]

The Court Clerk has informed the Court that a bid from Gribble19 (@gribble19) has been accepted. She shall represent the Defendant.

The Defense shall provide an answer to complaint in the next 72 hours.

 

[gribble19]

Answer to Complaint

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

Wayne_Kerr12
Plaintiff

v.

Beloitte
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defendant AFFIRMS that on the 3rd of March, the Plaintiff reached out to the Defendant requesting services.
2. The Defendant AFFIRMS that on the 4th of March, the Defendant agreed to a $10,000 retainer.
3. The Defendant AFFIRMS that the Plaintiff paid the Defendant $10,000 for the retainer on the 4th March.
4. The Defendant DENIES that the Defendant agreed not to take any money from the retainer for the contract completed on the 4th March
5. The Defendant AFFIRMS that on the 15th, 16th and 30th of March, the Plaintiff contacted the defendant, asking about more work and got no response.

II. DEFENCES
1. The agreement made between Plaintiff and Defendant on March 4th 2026 did not constitute a legally binding contract.
2. The Defendant did not breach the agreement made between Plaintiff and Defendant on March 4th 2026.
3. The Defendant's conduct did not demonstrate a substantial departure from acceptable standards of behavior.

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 first day of May 2026.

 

[Franciscus]

Thank you, counselor.

Discovery begins now and shall last for 5 days (120 hours) from the time this message is posted.

 

[gribble19]

Pursuant to Rule 4.7, the Defendant requests the Plaintiff produce the following materials relevant to the case:

1. The missing messages that occured between P-002 and P-003 in the same channel shown in these two screenshots.
2. The missing messages that occured between P-004 and P-005 in the same channel shown in these two screenshots.

 

[gribble19]

Pursuant to Rule 4.8, the Defendant submits the following interrogatory question relative to the case to the Plaintiff:

1. What were the Wayne_Kerr12's and xdbh's total active playtimes respectively at the time the agreement was made?

 

[dodrio3]

Pursuant to Rule 4.8, the Defendant submits the following interrogatory question relative to the case to the Plaintiff:

1. What were the Wayne_Kerr12's and xdbh's total active playtimes respectively at the time the agreement was made?

To the best of the Plaintiff's knowledge, the Plaitiff had around 4 days of active playtime.

The Plaintiff is, however, unable to comment on the activity of the defendant

 

[dodrio3]

Pursuant to Rule 4.7, the Defendant requests the Plaintiff produce the following materials relevant to the case:

1. The missing messages that occured between P-002 and P-003 in the same channel shown in these two screenshots.
2. The missing messages that occured between P-004 and P-005 in the same channel shown in these two screenshots.

1. P-006

2. P-007

 

[dodrio3]

The Plaintiff would like to call Wayne_Kerr12 as a witness.

 

[Franciscus]

Discovery concluded earlier today.

The Plaintiff (@dodrio3) has 72 hours to provide an opening statement. The Court will provide the Defendant 72 hours for their statement thereafter.

 

[dodrio3]

Opening Statement

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honour,

This is a simple case of breach of contract. It can clearly be shown that, in P-003, a retainer contract was agreed to by both parties, and payments were made. The Defendants' public defender affirms that all of the facts regarding this were true.
P-005 Demonstrates that the plaintiff made multiple attempts to contact the defendant regarding the completion of additional work with the retainer. The Defendant's public defender also affirmed that these facts were correct

P-004 confirms that the defendant states, “if I waive the contract fee for anything related to mexicanraindeer can you hook them up with a discount?” and then later stated, “sure kindly let mexicanranindeer know about the change on my behalf”

This clearly shows that there was a deal in place to waive the “1k” fee for the creation of the contract against the retainer.

In the case Maxib02 V. Beloitte [2026] DCR 34, it is found that punitive damages are an appropriate remedy when a contract is formed and its failed to be upheld by a party their is appropriate standing to offer punitive damages as a remedy.

 

[Franciscus]

The Defendant (CC: @gribble19 ) shall have 72 hours to present their opening statement.

 

[aubunny]

I'll be presiding over this case from here on out.

 

[gribble19]

Opening Statement

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor, the Defendant will use this trial to show that they did not breach a contract with the Plaintiff.

While it has been established that the Plaintiff and Defendant made an agreement, the Defendant has not breached this allegedly valid contract. Defendant will show that they did not fail to perform any legally required obligations under the alleged contract, and that this lack of failure to perform a legally required obligation is supported by the evidence in case. The Defendant looks forward to Plaintiff's testimony and believes that it will further support the fact that the Defendant did not breach the alleged contract in question.

Thank you.

 

[aubunny]

We will now move on to witness questioning.

The Plaintiff brought forward one witness.

---

Writ of Summons

@Wayne_Kerr12 is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Wayne_kerr12 v Belloitte [2026] DCR 38​

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.

 

[Wayne_Kerr12]

Howdy!

 

[aubunny]

Thank you for your prompt arrival!
As the Plaintiff summoned this witness, they (@dodrio3) shall have 24 hours to question them. Upon receiving the question, the witness shall have 24 hours in return to respond. Please ping them whenever you ask to help keep all parties aware of anything sent their way.

Follow-up questions permitted, let me know if you need any extension [Plaintiff and witness]

 

[dodrio3]

@Wayne_Kerr12

1. Can you explain the Agreement that you had with the Defendant?

2. Did you give Mexican Raindeer the discount stated in P-004?

3. What services did the Defendant complete under the reatiner?

 

[Wayne_Kerr12]

1. I was told that under the retainer package that I would be able to get a bunch of contracts drafted up for my business. I was also promised that for roughly 50k they would be able to handle the incorporation of my company Wanyka's Construction. I had not yet come up with the 50k at the time so I had not paid that, but was planning to incorporate soon.

2. The first and only contract that Beloite wrote for me was for a client of mine Mexican Raindeer of which is an employee for beloite in some fashion. Nick had told me that they would waive the fee for the contract drafting process if I had given my client Mexican Reindeer a discount on my services. That was agreed upon and happened.

3. As stated above they only drafted one contract for me, of which they agreed to waive the fee for said contract. I was unable to get any other contracts drafted up despite me reaching out many times.

 

[dodrio3]

1. I was told that under the retainer package that I would be able to get a bunch of contracts drafted up for my business. I was also promised that for roughly 50k they would be able to handle the incorporation of my company Wanyka's Construction. I had not yet come up with the 50k at the time so I had not paid that, but was planning to incorporate soon.

2. The first and only contract that Beloite wrote for me was for a client of mine Mexican Raindeer of which is an employee for beloite in some fashion. Nick had told me that they would waive the fee for the contract drafting process if I had given my client Mexican Reindeer a discount on my services. That was agreed upon and happened.

3. As stated above they only drafted one contract for me, of which they agreed to waive the fee for said contract. I was unable to get any other contracts drafted up despite me reaching out many times.

Thank You, Addioanly could you answer

1. Did you rely on the promise when choosing to use Beloite's services?

2. What discount did you provide to Mexican raindeer?

3. Did the Defendant ever try to compensate you for failing to provide the offered services?

@Wayne_Kerr12

 

[Wayne_Kerr12]

1. I had faith that buying into the retainer package would be beneficial for my business and I had relied on the promise of future service.

2. I gave Mexican Reindeer roughly 1k discount which is roughly what it would have costed to draft the contract up.

3. I was unable to ever get a response back one Beloite stopped responding to my messages. So no they never tried to compensate me.

 

[dodrio3]

1. I had faith that buying into the retainer package would be beneficial for my business and I had relied on the promise of future service.

2. I gave Mexican Reindeer roughly 1k discount which is roughly what it would have costed to draft the contract up.

3. I was unable to ever get a response back one Beloite stopped responding to my messages. So no they never tried to compensate me.

That is all my questions.

 

[aubunny]

The Defendant (@gribble19) shall now repeat the process for cross-examination. They have 24 hours, same rules apply.

 

[gribble19]

@Wayne_Kerr12

1. In your witness testimony you've referred to Beloitte's promise that for roughly 50k they would be able to handle the incorporation of your company Wanyka's Construction. Was this alleged promise something that happened during the conversations you had that are visible in the pieces of evidence submitted by Plaintiff in this case?

2. What did you give mexican reindeer a discount on?

3. Was there any further communication between you and Beloitte beyond the communication visible in the evidence in this case?


The Defendant intends to ask follow-up questions.

 

[gribble19]

Motion

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

Your Honor, the Plaintiff/witness has failed to respond within the deadline. The Defendant respectfully requests that the Plaintiff/witness be held in contempt of court for this, that the Plaintiff/witness be punished accordingly, and that they be compelled to answer the outstanding cross-examination questions and any follow-up questions that may follow.

Thank you.

 

[aubunny]

Motion

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

Your Honor, the Plaintiff/witness has failed to respond within the deadline. The Defendant respectfully requests that the Plaintiff/witness be held in contempt of court for this, that the Plaintiff/witness be punished accordingly, and that they be compelled to answer the outstanding cross-examination questions and any follow-up questions that may follow.

Thank you.

@Wayne_Kerr12

1. In your witness testimony you've referred to Beloitte's promise that for roughly 50k they would be able to handle the incorporation of your company Wanyka's Construction. Was this alleged promise something that happened during the conversations you had that are visible in the pieces of evidence submitted by Plaintiff in this case?

2. What did you give mexican reindeer a discount on?

3. Was there any further communication between you and Beloitte beyond the communication visible in the evidence in this case?


The Defendant intends to ask follow-up questions.

@Wayne_Kerr12 As a reminder, witnesses have 24 hours to respond to questioning, as you did not ask for an extension, that time has long lapsed.
Under pain of contempt, please answer the above questions. You will be held in contempt for every 12 hours after this post without a response, unless you provide a reason why it requires further delay.

 

[Wayne_Kerr12]

1. I sent my lawyer all the messages between me and Beloite. You should be able to read through them and see for yourself that this is indeed true.

2. $1 k

3. My lawyer has all the screenshots like I said. So whatever submitted is relevant for the case.

Pardon the tardy response. Been pretty busy lately.

 

[gribble19]

1. I sent my lawyer all the messages between me and Beloite. You should be able to read through them and see for yourself that this is indeed true.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NON RESPONSIVE

Your Honor, the Plaintiff/witness did not answer the question. The Defendant asked a simple yes or no question with regards to what the Plaintiff/witness in particular was referring to.

The Defendant respectfully requests that the Plaintiff/witness be held in contempt of court and be made to answer the question.

2. $1 k

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NON RESPONSIVE

Your Honor, the question asked what the discount was given on, not how high of a discount was given. The Plaintiff/witness for the second time completely failed to answer the question even after having been given an extensive amount of extra time to do so.

The Defendant respectfully requests that the Plaintiff/witness be held in contempt of court and be made to answer the question.

3. My lawyer has all the screenshots like I said. So whatever submitted is relevant for the case.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NON RESPONSIVE

Your Honor, the question was not what files the lawyer has or whether or not what has been submitted is relevant to the case. The Plaintiff/witness did not answer this question either and has failed to properly answer every question asked combined with their unnecessary causing of delays without requesting an extension.

The Defendant respectfully requests that the Plaintiff/witness be held in contempt of court and be made to answer the question.

 

[aubunny]

Objection​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NON RESPONSIVE

Your Honor, the Plaintiff/witness did not answer the question. The Defendant asked a simple yes or no question with regards to what the Plaintiff/witness in particular was referring to.

The Defendant respectfully requests that the Plaintiff/witness be held in contempt of court and be made to answer the question.

Overruled
Witness did indeed answer the question, see the end of their response, "This is indeed true."

Objection​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NON RESPONSIVE

Your Honor, the question asked what the discount was given on, not how high of a discount was given. The Plaintiff/witness for the second time completely failed to answer the question even after having been given an extensive amount of extra time to do so.

The Defendant respectfully requests that the Plaintiff/witness be held in contempt of court and be made to answer the question.

Sustained
Witness (@Wayne_Kerr12), please answer the question of what the discount was applied to[or "given on"], not the amount of the discount itself.
Within 24 hours, please.

Objection​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NON RESPONSIVE

Your Honor, the question was not what files the lawyer has or whether or not what has been submitted is relevant to the case. The Plaintiff/witness did not answer this question either and has failed to properly answer every question asked combined with their unnecessary causing of delays without requesting an extension.

The Defendant respectfully requests that the Plaintiff/witness be held in contempt of court and be made to answer the question.

Sustained
Witness (@Wayne_Kerr12), please answer if there were any communications between you and Beloitte beyond what is visible in this case, for reference that can be found in P-01 through P-05 in the Case Filing (Post 1) and P-06 through P-07 (Post 16). Again, within 24 hours.

 

[gribble19]

@Wayne_Kerr12

4. What is/are the exact message(s) in which Beloitte made the alleged promise referred to in question 1 of cross-examination to you?

 

[Wayne_Kerr12]

Oh Mexican Reindeer was given a discount on building services, which my firm Waynka's Construction does.

4. Its in P-004 of original evidence submission

 

[gribble19]

Oh Mexican Reindeer was given a discount on building services, which my firm Waynka's Construction does.

Objection

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

Your Honor, the Plaintiff/witness once again did not reply before the deadline set by the court. This is now becoming a consistent pattern of behavior. Furthermore, the witness completely ignored one of the two questions which they were told to answer by the Court. The Defendant respectfully requests that the Plaintiff/witness be made to answer the second question as well, and be held in contempt of court for their consistent disregard of the Court's orders to them.

4. Its in P-004 of original evidence submission

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NON-RESPONSIVE

Your Honor, the Defendant did not ask in which piece of evidence it could be found but rather for the specific messages in which the alleged promise was made according to Plaintiff/witness. The Defendant respectfully request that the witness ve made to specify which message(s) within P-004 contain the alleged promise.

 

[aubunny]

Objection​

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

Your Honor, the Plaintiff/witness once again did not reply before the deadline set by the court. This is now becoming a consistent pattern of behavior. Furthermore, the witness completely ignored one of the two questions which they were told to answer by the Court. The Defendant respectfully requests that the Plaintiff/witness be made to answer the second question as well, and be held in contempt of court for their consistent disregard of the Court's orders to them.

Sustained - In part
While the witness missed the deadline, I will give one final stretch of leeway for deadlines as it was only by roughly 20 minutes, and the Witness did say earlier it was a busy week.

However, the witness did miss the other question and requested that the response to question 3 be reworded, which asked whether the lawyer had omitted any screenshots in the case [Found Here], and the request is still pending. As this seems to be due to unintentional ignorance, I will offer a final 12 hours. @Wayne_Kerr12

Objection​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NON-RESPONSIVE

Your Honor, the Defendant did not ask in which piece of evidence it could be found but rather for the specific messages in which the alleged promise was made according to Plaintiff/witness. The Defendant respectfully request that the witness ve made to specify which message(s) within P-004 contain the alleged promise.

Sustained
Witness (@Wayne_Kerr12) is asked to rephrase, giving the specific message that contains the promise, a quote of that message/messages would suffice.

 

[Wayne_Kerr12]

Okay I dont think I understand what you want from me...

 

[gribble19]

Okay I dont think I understand what you want from me...

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE
Your Honor, this is quite frankly getting ridiculous. When Plaintiff was questioning the Plaintiff/witness they perfectly understood what was expected of them and provided timely answers to all questions asked. Plaintiff/witness has gotten extension after extension and extra leeway time and time again. Besides this, they are not only the witness but also the Plaintiff which means they have qualified legal counsel assisting them. It is completely unclear to the Defendant why it is so difficult for the Plaintiff/witness to properly and timely answer the cross-examination questions. The Court has made it very clear that a *final* extension was given, and thus the Defendant respectfully requests that the Plaintiff/witness now finally be held in Contempt of Court and be held accountable for their ridiculous behavior, anything else would make the Court's final warnings lose all meaning. The Defendant furthermore requests that the witness be ordered to answer the questions asked as well as any follow-up questions that may be asked at direct threat of further Contempt of Court charges, or alternatively that the case be dismissed if the Plaintiff is incapable of affording the Defendant a timely and fair trial due to a sudden inability to properly answer questions and provide testimony.

 

[aubunny]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE
Your Honor, this is quite frankly getting ridiculous. When Plaintiff was questioning the Plaintiff/witness they perfectly understood what was expected of them and provided timely answers to all questions asked. Plaintiff/witness has gotten extension after extension and extra leeway time and time again. Besides this, they are not only the witness but also the Plaintiff which means they have qualified legal counsel assisting them. It is completely unclear to the Defendant why it is so difficult for the Plaintiff/witness to properly and timely answer the cross-examination questions. The Court has made it very clear that a *final* extension was given, and thus the Defendant respectfully requests that the Plaintiff/witness now finally be held in Contempt of Court and be held accountable for their ridiculous behavior, anything else would make the Court's final warnings lose all meaning. The Defendant furthermore requests that the witness be ordered to answer the questions asked as well as any follow-up questions that may be asked at direct threat of further Contempt of Court charges, or alternatively that the case be dismissed if the Plaintiff is incapable of affording the Defendant a timely and fair trial due to a sudden inability to properly answer questions and provide testimony.

Sustained
The witness shall be held in contempt and then held in further contempt every 12 until an answer to the pending questions is provided.

@Wayne_Kerr12, please contact your lawyer if you are unsure how to properly answer these questions. Witnesses are expected to have a general understanding of the rules and procedures (see Summons post); therefore, ignorance is not a complete excuse in this situation.

 

[Wayne_Kerr12]

Just point me to the question you want answered.

 

[gribble19]

Your Honor,
for the sake of the pace of this trial and to ensure clarity for the witness the Defendant will hereby repeat the two currently pending questions to the best of their knowledge.

@Wayne_Kerr12

3. Was there any further communication between you and Beloitte beyond the communication visible in the evidence in this case?

4. What is/are the exact message(s) in which Beloitte made the alleged promise referred to in question 1 of cross-examination to you?

 

[Wayne_Kerr12]

3. No
4. P-004 you can see I said to put the bid at 19k vs the original 20k that was specified in P-003

 

[gribble19]

4. P-004 you can see I said to put the bid at 19k vs the original 20k that was specified in P-003

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NON RESPONSIVE, PERJURY

Your Honor,
The answer given does not in any reasonable way show Beloitte promisingt that for roughly 50k they would be able to handle the incorporation of the company Wanyka's Construction.

 

[gribble19]

Your Honor, Defendant is aware that these questions are similar to questions that have already been asked, but since it seems that the witness does not understand those questions we will try again in other words.


@Wayne_Kerr12

5. Did Beloitte promise you that for roughly 50k they would be able to handle the incorporation of the company Wanyka's Construction?

6. What definition of the word promise did you use when answering the previous question?

If the answer to question 5 was yes: (if the answer was no, please skip this question)
7. What was the exact wording used by Beloitte to make the promise that for roughly 50k they would be able to handle the incorporation of the company Wanyka's Construction

 

[aubunny]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NON RESPONSIVE, PERJURY

Your Honor,
The answer given does not in any reasonable way show Beloitte promisingt that for roughly 50k they would be able to handle the incorporation of the company Wanyka's Construction.

Sustained- In Part
This Court will not charge the witness with perjury, as it cannot be reliably surmised that they are intentionally perjuring themselves in front of this Court. However, it is found that the answer provided is insufficient to prove the 50k figure was promised, as the evidence pointed to by the Witness shows a 19k bid instead.
As the Plaintiff has asked follow-up questions with the intent of getting a clearer answer, the Witness shall only be ordered to answer those, with the deficient answer struck.

---

Sustained
The witness shall be held in contempt and then held in further contempt every 12 until an answer to the pending questions is provided.

@Wayne_Kerr12, please contact your lawyer if you are unsure how to properly answer these questions. Witnesses are expected to have a general understanding of the rules and procedures (see Summons post); therefore, ignorance is not a complete excuse in this situation.

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
ORDER- Contempt of Court

This Court holds Witness Wayne_Kerr12 in Contempt of Court for failing to follow given Court orders.
Pursuant to the guides set out in Post #44, this Court gives out 1 Contempt of Court Charge.

With mitigating factors in mind, the Court issues the following.
Wayne_Kerr12 is found GUILTY of Contempt of Court and is charged the following:
$1,000 with no Imprisonment

 

[Wayne_Kerr12]

5. Promise.. no! Nick honestly just outlined what it would cost for legal work I needed done, and I told him I needed an intermediate retainer package for more pressing legal work that needed to be done.

6. Your leading with "promise", as you can see quote described below. No contract signed meaning no promises sealed at the time. 50k was what they quoted me for future work, had we ever had the chance to get that far.
7.

ss from p-006 showing the $50k figure and what exactly it would cover.


Im sorry but yall are really fining me because Im not following what your trying to ask me here... but I do understand that some of this confusion comes from the lack of knowledge of the available facts in this case...

I never paid 50k as I was never able to get to that point with Beloite. What I did pay was a $10k retainer that due to circumstances of only getting some work product from Beloite I am still entitled to the full $10k retainer. of which I have heard nothing still to this day from them to reach out or even explain to me whats going on.

Im really busy IRL and this is very likely against the status quo of court. but I feel misunderstood in this whole ordeal, so I am setting the record straight. I am juggling a lot at the moment IRL so while I understand my punishment due to my tardiness, I am also asking the courts to recognize that DC is not the primary focus of my life.
If you give me time I can tell you the exact facts of this case and yall can do the rest of deliberating a resolution.

Thank you,
a Sincere statement
From Wayne Kerr

 

[aubunny]

Does the Defendant have any more questions? @gribble19

 

[gribble19]

Yes, your Honor.

@Wayne_Kerr12

8. Witness has previously stated under oath: "I was told that under the retainer package that I would be able to get a bunch of contracts drafted up for my business". Was Plaintiff told this by Defendant before or after agreeing to the $10,000 retainer?

9. What provisions of the $10,000 retainer were communicated by Defendant to Plaintiff before the agreement of the $10,000 was made?

10. Has Beloitte taken any money out of Plaintiff's retainer balance of $10,000 with them?

 

[gribble19]

@Wayne_Kerr12

11. Has any work been agreed upon by both parties but not yet been completed by Beloitte?

 

[Wayne_Kerr12]

8. Before paying the 10k retainer

9. do you understand how retainers work? 10k upfront covers 10k worth of legal fees -_-

10. according to the agreement shown, no I have not made any charges against the 10k retainer.

11. nope

 

[gribble19]

@Wayne_Kerr12

12. So there were no other provisions to the agreement for the $10,000 retainer beyond those told in the answer to question 9?

 

[Wayne_Kerr12]

12. They told me 10k for 10k of service. I paid them 10k

 

[gribble19]

12. They told me 10k for 10k of service. I paid them 10k

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NON-RESPONSIVE

Your honor, this was already established. The question asked was whether or not there were any other provisions to the agreement. We respectfully request a clear yes or no answer.

 

[aubunny]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NON-RESPONSIVE

Your honor, this was already established. The question asked was whether or not there were any other provisions to the agreement. We respectfully request a clear yes or no answer.

Sustained
Please rephrase the answer to that last question, @Wayne_Kerr12; a simple yes/no will suffice.

 

[Wayne_Kerr12]

12. no

 

[gribble19]

@Wayne_Kerr12

13. What was the exact phrasing Beloitte used to convey to you that "10k upfront covers 10k worth of legal fees"?

 

[Wayne_Kerr12]

13. P-003

 

[gribble19]

@Wayne_Kerr12
14. In the screenshot you sent the only messages visible from the representative of Beloitte are "sure" and "what do you need". The question asked by you in the message before is: "I would like to pay a retainer of 10k because I need some contracts drafted up. Would that be alright." Was this the exact, entire, and only communication between you and Beloitte from which you concluded that Beloitte agreed with you that "10k upfront covers 10k worth of legal fees"?

 

[Wayne_Kerr12]

14. I mean retainer packages work this way yeah.

 

[gribble19]

14. I mean retainer packages work this way yeah.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NON-RESPONSIVE

Your Honor, we did not ask how retainer packages work.

@Wayne_Kerr12
15. Is your idea that the agreement contained a provision that "10k upfront covers 10k worth of legal fees" based on communication from Beloitte to you, or based on personally held assumptions that were not communicated between you and Beloitte?

 

[Wayne_Kerr12]

15. It was directly communicated to me that I could pay into a retainer package. the minimum they offered was 10k. Thats what was agreed upon to hire Beloite for legal services

 

[Smallfries]

This one appears to have slipped under our radar. I will be presiding officer here.

It appears we have finished with questioning. Plaintiff @Wayne_Kerr12 shall have seventy-two hours to file their closing statements.

 

[Smallfries]

Defendant (@gribble19) shall have seventy-two hours to file their closing statement.

 

[Wayne_Kerr12]

@dodrio3 my lawyer...

 

[Smallfries]

@dodrio3 my lawyer...

Please don't speak out of turn.

 

[gribble19]

Your Honor, the Defendant respectfully requests a 36 hour extension on their closing statement.

 

[Smallfries]

Your Honor, the Defendant respectfully requests a 36 hour extension on their closing statement.

Granted.

 

[Smallfries]

I find plaintiff @Wayne_Kerr12 in contempt of court for one count, due to an attempted ex parte communication. I fine him 25 penalty units.

Spoiler: Ex Parte

 

[Wayne_Kerr12]

May I object?
state my case?

 

[Smallfries]

May I object?
state my case?

You can appeal my judgment to the Federal Court. Please do not speak out of turn again, or you will get another.

 

[Wayne_Kerr12]

Okay well you asked for my closing statement. Of which I tried to explain to you in private to save DC lawyers some decency in this case, but as you aired out in public; my new lawyer representing me in this case is MIA just like the first lawyer that I am trying to sue.

My closing statement:
This case has been cut and dry since it was filed. The evidence was able to answer and satisfy the defending counsels questions behind why I sent Beloite 10k for a retainer package, and how they have not held up their agreement to support my legal needs. It really was simple what Dodrio was asking for on my behalf and despite having absolute no guidance on what I am actually supposed to do, as an honest working citizen I dont see why this legal system has to be so vicious to unsuspecting people. It's a Minecraft server at the end of the day, so do step off your pedestal please, give guidance before penalties would be my advice .

Anyway its quite ironic that a case about one lawyer just going MIA with 10k of my money is filed by the promise of another lawyer who heard about my loss at beloite..... only for that lawyer to also disappear...
I promise you it isn't me, I actually really pleasant

 

[Smallfries]

Okay well you asked for my closing statement. Of which I tried to explain to you in private to save DC lawyers some decency in this case, but as you aired out in public; my new lawyer representing me in this case is MIA just like the first lawyer that I am trying to sue.

My closing statement:
This case has been cut and dry since it was filed. The evidence was able to answer and satisfy the defending counsels questions behind why I sent Beloite 10k for a retainer package, and how they have not held up their agreement to support my legal needs. It really was simple what Dodrio was asking for on my behalf and despite having absolute no guidance on what I am actually supposed to do, as an honest working citizen I dont see why this legal system has to be so vicious to unsuspecting people. It's a Minecraft server at the end of the day, so do step off your pedestal please, give guidance before penalties would be my advice .

Anyway its quite ironic that a case about one lawyer just going MIA with 10k of my money is filed by the promise of another lawyer who heard about my loss at beloite..... only for that lawyer to also disappear...
I promise you it isn't me, I actually really pleasant

I find plaintiff @Wayne_Kerr12 in contempt of court. After being corrected, given lenience, and then ordered twice to not speak out of turn—the second time, on explicit pain of contempt—they have spoken yet again.

I charge them with three counts of contempt, one for each paragraph inappropriately submitted. The filing is struck from the record. Each count shall carry with it ten minutes of jailtime and twenty-five penalty units, for a total of thirty minutes jailtime and seventy-five penalty units.

 

[gribble19]

Your Honor, the Defendant respectfully requests a final two hour extension to the deadline for their closing statement.

 

[gribble19]

Closing Statement

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honor, this is a simple case. The claims for relief brought forward in this case by the Plaintiff against the Defendant are simply incorrect.

1. ON THE FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
The first claim for relief as written in Plaintiff's complaint first reiterates two facts that have been agreed to by both parties within this case, namely that Plaintiff and Defendant agreed to a $10,000 retainer on March 4th 2026 and that the Plaintiff paid $10,000 to Defendant on March 4th 2026. These facts are not disputed, as can be seen in Defendant's answer to complaint.

After this follows the actual claim that is being made by Plaintiff, which is that the Defendant breached this agreement by "failing to provide any services".

It is abundantly clear that this is not the case and that this is an objectively incorrect factual claim.

In P-003 and P-004, after both the agreement and the payment of $10,000 happened, Plaintiff and Defendant can be seen discussing the details of a contract, which Plaintiff requested Defendant create for them.

In the second image of P-007 Defendant can be seen delivering this discussed contract to Plaintiff and requesting Plaintiff to review the contract. Plaintiff then responds with "It looks good! I'll fire this off to the client. Thanks."

Beyond that, in the first image of P-007 Plaintiff can be seen asking for legal advice from the Defendant which regard to a potential legal dispute. The Defendant can then be seen advising the Plaintiff with regards to this matter.

It is clear that Defendant has provided services, such as the creation of a contract and the offering of legal advice, to the Plaintiff. The Defendant has thus not failed to provide any services at all to the Plaintiff. As the first claim made is objectively incorrect, the Defendant asks the court to rule in favor of the Defendant on this first claim for relief.

2. ON THE SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
The second claim for relief states that "by accepting a large sum of money and not completing the work that they agreed upon" the Defendant has committed conduct that strays substantially from acceptable standards of behavior to a level that would warrant punitive damages to be granted against the Defendant.

This claim for relief is once again based on an objectively incorrect factual claim that Defendant, in Plaintiff's own words, did not complete work that Plaintiff and Defendant agreed upon.

Question 11 asked during cross-examination of the Plaintiff was "11. Has any work been agreed upon by both parties but not yet been completed by Beloitte?" (See #54)

The Plaintiff's answer to this question was "nope". (See #55)

The Plaintiff themself has testified under oath that no work had been agreed upon by both parties and had not yet been completed by Beloitte. As such, the claim that Beloitte did not complete the work that they agreed upon (where they clearly referred to the two parties to this lawsuit) has been shown within the course of this trial to be false. The Defendant asks the court to rule in favor of the Defendant on this second claim for relief.

Thank you, Your Honor.

 

[Smallfries]

Your Honor, the Defendant respectfully requests a final two hour extension to the deadline for their closing statement.

Granted.

---

The court is now in recess, pending verdict.

 

[Smallfries]

Okay well you asked for my closing statement. Of which I tried to explain to you in private to save DC lawyers some decency in this case, but as you aired out in public; my new lawyer representing me in this case is MIA just like the first lawyer that I am trying to sue.

My closing statement:
This case has been cut and dry since it was filed. The evidence was able to answer and satisfy the defending counsels questions behind why I sent Beloite 10k for a retainer package, and how they have not held up their agreement to support my legal needs. It really was simple what Dodrio was asking for on my behalf and despite having absolute no guidance on what I am actually supposed to do, as an honest working citizen I dont see why this legal system has to be so vicious to unsuspecting people. It's a Minecraft server at the end of the day, so do step off your pedestal please, give guidance before penalties would be my advice .

Anyway its quite ironic that a case about one lawyer just going MIA with 10k of my money is filed by the promise of another lawyer who heard about my loss at beloite..... only for that lawyer to also disappear...
I promise you it isn't me, I actually really pleasant

I find plaintiff @Wayne_Kerr12 in contempt of court. After being corrected, given lenience, and then ordered twice to not speak out of turn—the second time, on explicit pain of contempt—they have spoken yet again.

I charge them with three counts of contempt, one for each paragraph inappropriately submitted. The filing is struck from the record. Each count shall carry with it ten minutes of jailtime and twenty-five penalty units, for a total of thirty minutes jailtime and seventy-five penalty units.

I find @Wayne_Kerr12 in contempt of court. After being corrected, given lenience, ordered twice to not speak out of turn, being found in contempt on three counts, and then having an inappropriate statement struck from the court record, Plaintiff again decided to act brazenly, outrageously, and foolishly by undoing an edit the Court made to strike their improper statement from the record.

I charge them with five counts of contempt of court. These counts shall constitute three for the three paragraphs of the submission (or perhaps, re-submission) made improperly, one count for brazenly defying and attempting to undermine a direct court order and action, and one for repeatedly disturbing the judgment, judicial workflow, and administration of the court. I have taken time out of my opinion writing to deal with this ludicrous business. I order the full punishment of 100 penalty units and 10 minutes imprisonment for each count, for a total of $60,000 fines and 50 minutes confinement.

I will set the court record straight to its original edit, less than twelve hours before Plaintiff defied the Court's authority. Do it again, and I will not be so lenient.

 

[Smallfries]

Verdict

Plaintiff Wayne_Kerr12 (“Plaintiff”) filed suit with the District Court regarding an alleged breach of contract arising from the retainer of legal services. The controversy arose after Plaintiff paid Deloitte (“Defendant”), a private legal firm, $10,000 for a retainer. In two issues, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant did not provide any services at all, and that Defendant’s conduct was “substantial[ly departed] from acceptable standards of behavior” after accepting the money and not completing the work.

I. Applicable Law

A contract is a legally binding agreement between two or more parties. Contracts Act § 4(1). There are five elements of a contract: offer, acceptance, consideration, intent, and capacity. Id. at § 4(2). A breach of a contract occurs when one party fails to fulfill its obligations. Id. at § 6. Breaching a contract is a civil infraction, and specifically, a contract tort with no fixed remedy. Redmont Civil Code Act (“RCCA”), Part VI, § 1.

II. Discussion

What is under contention here is whether “the agreement made [between the parties] was a legally binding contract,” and if so, whether that contract was breached. On March 4, 2026, parties here agreed to contract to services where Defendant would provide legal services on retainer in return for $10,000. This money was deposited and paid. This retainer agreement follows the traditional model of retainership, where the money paid is an advance for future legal services rendered. No formal contract was signed, the agreement was fully “verbal” (though the agreement was completely over text, it was informal in discussion).

After some negotiation, the parties created the arrangement for $10,000. In the terms of discussion, Defendant said “when you need us . . . we bill against the retainer . . . we will charge the retainer account . . . [if] you dont [sic] use services for a month you dont [sic] pay anything”. Later, on March 7, Defendant is shown giving some legal advice over a business matter.

Oddly, Defendant admits in their opening argument “it has been established that the [parties] made an agreement.” Therefore, we dispose of the issue of whether a contract was formed at all.

Next, we move to claims of breach. Plaintiff asserts Defendant breached the contract when the latter failed to respond to any future attempts by Plaintiff to seek legal services after their first contract was completed. Plaintiff contends that services performed up to this point were “roughly 1k.” Therefore, the remaining $9,000 in retainer fees were unaccounted for.

The nature of this contract is fairly loose, and does not seem to overly bind the parties together. Certainly, Defendant is not bound to mandatorily take any and all work demands. Plaintiff does not show any language providing for such a term, or for any language contemplating Defendant's quick response to a request, or any limitations on requests that Defendant will not do. Without any implicit or explicit language that Defendant will do work when asked, there is no mandatory automatic performance demanded. The agreement here as arranged seems to be little more than up-front payment for future work agreed upon, not a binding contract that says “you will do work for me when I ask for it, to be paid out of this retainer.” In testimony, Plaintiff agrees that no work has been agreed to but not yet completed.

Therefore, it is clear to me that this contract, validly formed, was very loose and served as little more than a “bar tab” contract where one party paid up front to have legal work done whenever both parties agreed to do that work. Though it would be preferable to have a stronger and more binding contract, that is not what the parties agreed to here, though one of the parties may want that. Contractual language must be obvious and tend towards a specific interpretation, not the internal desires or intents of one party. This is the crux of the critical factor agreement: both parties must agree to the same terms.

As a result, Defendant did not breach the contract. The only way to breach this contract would have been to agree to do specific work and then not perform that work, or charge in excess of the price that was agreed upon.

Holding that this contract was not breached, I do not arrive at Plaintiff's assertions about Defendant’s alleged outlandish behavior.

III. Conclusion

The parties engaged in a contract. This contract, a creature of the parties’ creation, was very loose and did not bind Defendant to do anything except complete promised work. Because Defendant did not promise to do any further work, delivered previously agreed upon work, and did not overcharge Plaintiff, they did not breach the contract.

I find for the Defendant, and order legal fees to be paid to the public defender, Gribble19. According to the RCCA, these fees shall be calculated as relevant to the “award requested by the plaintiff if the defendant prevails.” This number shall equal $32,500 in total, equivalent to sum of the consequential damages, the punitive damages, and 30% of value of those two combined. The legal fees to be awarded will be 30% of that value, or $9,750; more than three times the District Court minimum.

Here, I believe this mandatory and over-broad language is harmful to the process of this court. Were I to be allowed a free hand in determining the remedy, I would have preferred to take a more nuanced approach to calculating the damages. From my perspective, Plaintiff’s victory would have gained him no punitive damages, as there is no evidence that there was any malice in Defendant’s action or some outrageous or barbarous conduct. He would only receive $9,000 of the requested $10,000 as by his own admission Defendant had properly completed about $1,000 worth of work. As a result, I would take $9,000 and the proper amount of requested legal fees—$3,000—and take 30% of their sum.

That number—$3,600—is what the legal fees for Defendant should be today. Instead, they earn much more than that. Perhaps Congress will change this arrangement to be more sensible and give more discretion. As it stands, this is the law we have.

I thank all parties for their time.