Lawsuit: Pending zPokebr_ v. ZapperyDoo [2026] DCR 113

[ILatteralus]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT​

Civil Action

zPokebr_,
Plaintiff,

v.

ZapperyDoo,
Defendant.

Complaint​

Comes now the Plaintiff, zPokebr_, by and through their retained counsel of record, ILatteralus of Maxwell & Associates, and formally petitions this Honorable Court for civil tort damages, equitable restitution, contract rescission, and evidentiary sanctions against Defendant ZapperyDoo.

Written Statement from the Plaintiff:

On June 21, 2026, I used the /find bread command and was directed to plot cbd040. Upon entering the front entryway, I approached a prominent barrel with a QuickShop sign and an item frame displaying standard bread. The surrounding blocks contained no signs or notices indicating this container was for charitable donations or held custom-named goods.

Relying on standard storefront layout, I executed a normal purchase sequence: an initial single purchase followed immediately by a shift-click bulk purchase. The container dispensed 56 total units and debited $16,800.00 from my balance.

Upon checking my inventory, I discovered the items were custom-renamed to '300$ Donation'. The QuickShop plugin syntax limited the display sign text to Bread#77d, completely hiding the custom name prior to purchase.

I took a screenshot of the entryway display and walked deeper into the shop. Hidden inside a rear alcove invisible from the front entryway, I located the Defendant's actual $0.40 bread inventory. Revisiting the plot later, I observed the Defendant had placed a new sign reading 'donations' directly next to the entryway barrel. That sign was absent when I completed my purchase.

In support thereof, Plaintiff alleges the following:

I. PARTIES​

1. The Plaintiff, zPokebr_ (widely recognized within community communications under the alias Cleors), is a lawful citizen and consumer residing within the Commonwealth of Redmont.
2. The Defendant, ZapperyDoo, is a registered citizen operating a commercial retail venture located at Central Business District commercial plot cbd040.

II. JURISDICTION & VENUE​

1. This Honorable Court holds subject-matter jurisdiction over this civil action pursuant to Part I, Section 6(1)(a) of the Criminal Code Act, which establishes the guiding legal principle that "in civil lawsuits, crimes may be used to seek damages."
   
   
2. The causes of action pleaded herein derive directly from the Defendant's commission of Indictable Corporate Offences, specifically Fraud and Misleading Advertising. Pursuant to Part I, Section 6(1)(b) of the Criminal Code Act, a prior criminal conviction is explicitly not a requirement for a crime to be regarded as a proven fact in a civil lawsuit; the civil standard of proof applies.
   
   
3. The Court possesses the inherent statutory authority to grant the requested financial restitution and equitable remedies pursuant to Part I, Section 5(4) of the Criminal Code Act, which authorizes judicial officers to impose lawful remedies including (compensatory) restitution and civil damages.
   
   This case falls within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the District Court because the amount in controversy ($16,800.00) does not exceed the $120,000.00 limit for minor civil cases, and this Court is authorized to hear minor civil and criminal disputes in the first instance.

III. FACTS​

1. On June 21, 2026, the Plaintiff was actively managing and stocking their own retail establishment at plot cbd037 when they got hungry. Seeking nourishment, the Plaintiff utilized server-wide market-search tools to locate the lowest market price for standard bread, nearest their location, which directed them to the Defendant’s shop at commercial plot cbd040.
   
   
2. Upon entering the primary, highly prominent public entryway of plot cbd040, the Plaintiff approached a prominent retail "container" - defined strictly by law as anything capable of holding items at player discretion through in-game mechanics - configured as a retail "Chestshop".
   
   
3. Directly above the QuickShop transaction sign affixed to this container, the Defendant maintained an Item Frame holding a completely standard, un-enchanted loaf of food-grade bread.
   
   
4. The transaction sign affixed to the backing barrel read: ZapperyDoo | Q 1 : C 0 | B300 | Bread#77d.
   
   
5. The Original Crime Scene: At the exact time of the Plaintiff's entry, the physical blocks immediately adjacent to this entryway barrel were entirely devoid of plain-text signs, lectern books, or written notices informing consumers that this specific barrel contained a custom novelty good or a voluntary charitable "Donation" (P-001).
   
   
6. Relying in good faith on universal server storefront conventions, the Plaintiff initially and mistakenly purchased a single unit for $300.00. The Plaintiff then immediately executed a standard bulk-purchase action ("shift-click") for an additional 55 units. It was only after completing these transactions that the Plaintiff realized the true nature of the cost, resulting in a cumulative acquisition of 56 units and a catastrophic account debit of $16,800.00 (P-001).
   
   
7. Upon inspection of the dispensed inventory, the Plaintiff discovered the merchandise was not standard food stock, but an item custom-renamed at an anvil to "300$ Donation". Because the server's QuickShop plugin automatically parses custom-named strings into a base item name appended with a syntax serialization hash (Bread#77d), the actual words "300$ Donation" were completely concealed from the consumer prior to purchase.
   
   
8. The Back-Alcove Funnel: Subsequent investigation revealed that the Defendant kept their actual, market-rate bread inventory hidden away in a recessed back alcove of the exact same plot, priced at B0.4 ($0.40 per unit) (P-002). Tucking the $0.40 bread behind the deceptive B300 entryway barrel establishes an orchestrated, bad-faith physical funnel designed to catch passerby off guard.
   
   
9. The Bad-Faith Cover-Up (Spoliation): Following the catastrophic $16,500.00 debit, the Defendant rushed back to commercial plot cbd040 and retroactively affixed a plain-text oak sign reading "donations" directly to the left of the B300 transaction sign (P-003). This post-transaction alteration represents an intentional, bad-faith effort to destroy the original crime scene, spoliate evidence, and manufacture a fraudulent procedural defense for anticipated litigation.

IV. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

COUNT I: CIVIL TORT RECOVERY ARISING FROM STATUTORY FRAUD

(Criminal Code Act, Part VII, Section 7)

15. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 14.

16. Pursuant to Part VII, Section 7 of the Criminal Code Act, the indictable offense of Fraud occurs when a person "knowingly or recklessly misrepresents or omits a material fact to another, causing the other party to rely on that misrepresentation, resulting in actual, quantifiable harm."

17. Defendant omitted the material fact that the entryway container was a voluntary donation repository by intentionally failing to place an explanatory sign adjacent to the barrel at the time of sale (P-001).

18. Defendant actively misrepresented the transaction by placing a standard loaf of food-grade bread in the display frame while concealing the true product name behind plugin syntax hash limits (#77d), tricking the Plaintiff into relying on standard QuickShop presentation.

19. As a direct result of Defendant's fraudulent omissions and active misrepresentations, Plaintiff suffered quantifiable economic harm in the exact amount of $16,800.00.

COUNT II: DISSEMINATION OF MISLEADING ADVERTISING

(Commercial Standards Act, Section 9(7) & Criminal Code Act, Part VII, Section 12)
20. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 19.

21. Pursuant to Section 9(9) of the Commercial Standards Act, a physical in-game display intended to benefit a privately owned business constitutes a "Commercial Advertisement."

22. Pursuant to Section 9(7)(a) of the Commercial Standards Act, an advertisement is Misleading if it presents true information in a way that misleads the reasonable person, specifically by "omitting information that a reasonable person would consider in their decision making."

23. Pursuant to Part VII, Section 12 of the Criminal Code Act, disseminating a commercial advertisement that is misleading in presentation is an indictable corporate offense.

24. By Defendant's own admission - evidenced by their retroactive placement of the "donations" sign (P-003) - the word "Donations" is a material piece of information that a reasonable person requires to understand the display. Because that crucial context was demonstrably omitted when zPokebr_ transacted with the barrel (P-001), the display constituted an unlawful, misleading advertisement.

V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff zPokebr_ respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and issue an Order granting the following:

A. Interlocutory Inspection Order: An immediate Order compelling a Court Clerk, staff member, or Department of Homeland Security officer to execute the block-inspection command (/inspect or /co i) on the sign reading "donations" depicted in P-003, to formally log the exact timestamp of its placement into the judicial record.

B. Contract Rescission: An Order declaring the retail sale of the 56 units of Bread#77d null and void ab initio due to a total lack of mutual assent (consensus ad idem) induced by deceptive trade practices.

C. Full Restitution (Compensatory): An Order compelling Defendant ZapperyDoo to pay Plaintiff zPokebr_ the full sum of $16,800.00 in statutory restitution pursuant to Part I, Section 5(4) of the Criminal Code Act, contemporaneously with the Plaintiff surrendering the 56 units of Bread#77d back to the Defendant.

D. Evidentiary Sanctions: An Order granting an adverse evidentiary inference against the Defendant for the intentional spoliation and bad-faith alteration of a disputed commercial storefront.

E. Legal Fees: An award of reasonable legal fees in the amount of 30% of the total damages claimed, or an amount considered reasonable by the Court. These fees are a necessary consequence of the Defendant's tortious conduct, as, but for the damage sustained, Plaintiff would not have required legal representation to seek redress.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

ILatteralus

Lead Counsel for Plaintiff zPokebr_

 

[ILatteralus]

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND INITIAL COMPLAINT

May it please the Court,

Plaintiff zPokebr_, by and through counsel, respectfully moves this Honorable Court for permission to amend the initial Complaint post. Pursuant to Court Rules and Procedures - Rule 3.3, Plaintiff seeks the Court's authorization to execute the following specific corrections:

1. Rule 1.10 Compliance: To embed the required hyperlinks into the first mentions of all cited statutes.
2. Plaintiff's Statement: To update and amend the Plaintiff "Statement" section with the Plaintiff's formal, firsthand statement regarding the transaction timeline.

Plaintiff requests approval to edit the primary Complaint post. Counsel submits this out of a duty of care to the Client to preserve their firsthand narrative, and a duty of procedural fairness to ensure the Defense possesses instantly verifiable hyperlinks before drafting their Answer. Because this advances Court Rule 1.6 clarity without altering any substantive claims, parties, or prayed relief, Plaintiff respectfully seeks the Court’s approval.

Respectfully,
ILatteralus
Lead Counsel for Plaintiff zPokebr_
Maxwell & Associates

 

[Dartanboy]

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND INITIAL COMPLAINT

May it please the Court,

Plaintiff zPokebr_, by and through counsel, respectfully moves this Honorable Court for permission to amend the initial Complaint post. Pursuant to Court Rules and Procedures - Rule 3.3, Plaintiff seeks the Court's authorization to execute the following specific corrections:

1. Rule 1.10 Compliance: To embed the required hyperlinks into the first mentions of all cited statutes.
2. Plaintiff's Statement: To update and amend the Plaintiff "Statement" section with the Plaintiff's formal, firsthand statement regarding the transaction timeline.

Plaintiff requests approval to edit the primary Complaint post. Counsel submits this out of a duty of care to the Client to preserve their firsthand narrative, and a duty of procedural fairness to ensure the Defense possesses instantly verifiable hyperlinks before drafting their Answer. Because this advances Court Rule 1.6 clarity without altering any substantive claims, parties, or prayed relief, Plaintiff respectfully seeks the Court’s approval.

Respectfully,
ILatteralus
Lead Counsel for Plaintiff zPokebr_
Maxwell & Associates

Granted. Please complete these amendments within the next 24 hours, after which a summons will be issued for the Defendant.

 

[ILatteralus]

Granted. Please complete these amendments within the next 24 hours, after which a summons will be issued for the Defendant.

Plaintiff and counsel are prepared to proceed.

The following changes have been made:
1. Added Hyperlinks to all related laws in accordance with Redmont Law.
2. Added personal statement from Plaintiff, Mr. zPokebr_

Thank you, your honor.

 

[Dartanboy]

Writ of Summons

@ZapperyDoo is required to appear before the District Court in the case of zPokebr_ v. ZapperyDoo [2026] DCR 113.

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.

 

[Dartanboy]

The court finds ZapperyDoo in Contempt of Court for failing to appear.

A Public Defender will be appointed.

 

[ILatteralus]

Motion

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION​

The Plaintiff moves the Court to reconsider its order dated July 10, 2026, appointing a Public Defender to the Defendant, and in support thereof respectfully alleges:

1. On July 7, 2026, this Court issued a Writ of Summons ordering Defendant @ZapperyDoo to appear within 72 hours or face default judgment.
2. The 72-hour response window closed on July 10, 2026, with no answer, plea, or appearance entered by the Defendant.
3. Instead of entering default proceedings, the Court found the Defendant in Contempt of Court and unilaterally appointed a Public Defender.
4. Per Court Rule 3.6.1 (Default Judgment on Failure to Respond), where a defendant fails to file a reply or responsive pleading, and no public defender has already been appointed, the action shall proceed to an inquest.
5. The rule uses the mandatory term "shall," stripping the Court of discretion to delay the case by assigning counsel after the deadline has expired.
6. The Plaintiff notes that under Court Rule 3.6.3, the Defendant retains the right to move to vacate a default judgment within seven days upon a showing of good cause. However, the burden to initiate that movement rests entirely on the Defendant, not on the Court to preemptively shield them via late appointment of counsel.

Wherefore, the Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to overrule its prior directive, vacate the appointment of the Public Defender, and immediately order the commencement of Inquest Proceedings pursuant to Court Rule 3.6.2.

DATED: This 11th day of July 2026

Respectfully,
ILatteralus
Lead Counsel for Plaintiff zPokebr_
Meridian Law

 

[Dartanboy]

Motion

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION​

The Plaintiff moves the Court to reconsider its order dated July 10, 2026, appointing a Public Defender to the Defendant, and in support thereof respectfully alleges:

1. On July 7, 2026, this Court issued a Writ of Summons ordering Defendant @ZapperyDoo to appear within 72 hours or face default judgment.
2. The 72-hour response window closed on July 10, 2026, with no answer, plea, or appearance entered by the Defendant.
3. Instead of entering default proceedings, the Court found the Defendant in Contempt of Court and unilaterally appointed a Public Defender.
4. Per Court Rule 3.6.1 (Default Judgment on Failure to Respond), where a defendant fails to file a reply or responsive pleading, and no public defender has already been appointed, the action shall proceed to an inquest.
5. The rule uses the mandatory term "shall," stripping the Court of discretion to delay the case by assigning counsel after the deadline has expired.
6. The Plaintiff notes that under Court Rule 3.6.3, the Defendant retains the right to move to vacate a default judgment within seven days upon a showing of good cause. However, the burden to initiate that movement rests entirely on the Defendant, not on the Court to preemptively shield them via late appointment of counsel.

Wherefore, the Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to overrule its prior directive, vacate the appointment of the Public Defender, and immediately order the commencement of Inquest Proceedings pursuant to Court Rule 3.6.2.

DATED: This 11th day of July 2026

Respectfully,
ILatteralus
Lead Counsel for Plaintiff zPokebr_
Meridian Law

Overruled.

The Court finds that the Constitution's positive right "to have the assistance of legally qualified counsel for their defence" supersedes Court Rule 3.6.1/3.6.2.

 

[Poker]

In this Honorable Court, i declare that i'll be self-representing me in this case from now on, since counsel Ilatteralus is inactive.

Additionaly, @ILatteralus will stay as co-counsel.

Motion

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

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court freezes assets belonging to Defendant ZapperyDoo to a total value of $16,800 for the duration of this trial. The purpose of this injunction is to prevent the Defendant from dispersing their assets or losing their assets as a result of their inactivity, which would cause great harm to the Plaintiff.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION OF INTENT TO AMEND COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff notes that the Prayers for Relief and Claims for Relief doesn't not contain any civil torts or civil violations. Thereby, the Plaintiff respectfully ask this court permission to amend the complain, adding the civil torts, as following:

IV. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

COUNT I: CIVIL TORT RECOVERY ARISING FROM STATUTORY FRAUD

(Civil Code Act, Part X, Section 1)
(Criminal Code Act, Part VII, Section 7)


15. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 14.

16. Pursuant to Part VII, Section 7 of the Criminal Code Act, the indictable offense of Fraud occurs when a person "knowingly or recklessly misrepresents or omits a material fact to another, causing the other party to rely on that misrepresentation, resulting in actual, quantifiable harm."

17. Pursuant to Civil Code Act, Part X, Section 1, the strict liability offense of Unjust Enrichment occurs when a person:
obtains and retains a benefit at another’s expense and there is no legal justification for retaining the benefit.

18. Defendant omitted the material fact that the entryway container was a voluntary donation repository by intentionally failing to place an explanatory sign adjacent to the barrel at the time of sale (P-001).

19. Defendant actively misrepresented the transaction by placing a standard loaf of food-grade bread in the display frame while concealing the true product name behind plugin syntax hash limits (#77d), tricking the Plaintiff into relying on standard QuickShop presentation.

20. As a direct result of Defendant's fraudulent omissions and active misrepresentations, Plaintiff suffered quantifiable economic harm in the exact amount of $16,800.00.

COUNT II: DISSEMINATION OF MISLEADING ADVERTISING

(Civil Code Act, Part VI, 3)
(Commercial Standards Act, Section 9(7))
(Criminal Code Act, Part VII, Section 12)

21. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 19.

22. Pursuant to Section 9(9) of the Commercial Standards Act, a physical in-game display intended to benefit a privately owned business constitutes a "Commercial Advertisement."

23. Pursuant to Section 9(7)(a) of the Commercial Standards Act, an advertisement is Misleading if it presents true information in a way that misleads the reasonable person, specifically by "omitting information that a reasonable person would consider in their decision making."

24. Pursuant to Part VII, Section 12 of the Criminal Code Act, disseminating a commercial advertisement that is misleading in presentation is an indictable corporate offense.

25. Pursuant to Civil Code Act, Part VI, 3 the intentional (or negligent) violation of Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce occurs when a person engages in conduct that is misleading, deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive another person in connection with the promotion, sale, or supply of goods or services.
This violation shall not occur where: the conduct constitutes puffery (obvious exaggeration) or the plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care in relying on the conduct.

26. By Defendant's own admission - evidenced by their retroactive placement of the "donations" sign (P-003) - the word "Donations" is a material piece of information that a reasonable person requires to understand the display. Because that crucial context was demonstrably omitted when zPokebr_ transacted with the barrel (P-001), the display constituted an unlawful, misleading advertisement. Therefore, the plaintiff, also re-alleging paragraphs 1 trough 24, claims that the plaintiff did not failed to exercise reasonable care in relying on the conduct, as the own defendant placed a donation sign after the incident.

VI. PRAYERS FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff zPokebr_ respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and issue an Order granting the following:

A. Interlocutory Inspection Order: An immediate Order compelling a Court Clerk, staff member, or Department of Homeland Security officer to execute the block-inspection command (/inspect or /co i) on the sign reading "donations" depicted in P-003, to formally log the exact timestamp of its placement into the judicial record.

B. Contract Rescission: An Order declaring the retail sale of the 56 units of Bread#77d null and void ab initio due to a total lack of mutual assent (consensus ad idem) induced by deceptive trade practices.

C. Full Restitution (Compensatory): An Order compelling Defendant ZapperyDoo to pay Plaintiff zPokebr_ the full sum of $16,800.00 in statutory restitution pursuant to Part I, Section 5(4) of the Criminal Code Act and Civil Code Act, Part VI, 3 contemporaneously with the Plaintiff surrendering the 56 units of Bread#77d back to the Defendant.

D. Evidentiary Sanctions: An Order granting an adverse evidentiary inference against the Defendant for the intentional spoliation and bad-faith alteration of a disputed commercial storefront.

E. Legal Fees: An award of reasonable legal fees in the amount of 30% of the total damages claimed, or an amount considered reasonable by the Court. These fees are a necessary consequence of the Defendant's tortious conduct, as, but for the damage sustained, Plaintiff would not have required legal representation to seek redress.

F. Remedy for Misleading Conduct on Trading or Commerce: Up to 250 Civil Penalty Units.

Nothing in this quote removed or altered the original Complaint content, except, for the sake of understanding, the paragraph numbering

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court to proceed to Default Judgement pursuant to Rule 3.6 of the Court Rules and Procedures.

The rule explicitly states:

Defendants must amend any answer to have affirmations or denials on all facts in addition to having defenses under the law or fact prior to the end of discovery. Failure to include the necessary information is grounds for plaintiffs to request the presiding judge to grant default judgment against the defendant on the undefended claims or facts.

The Defendant has already been afforded every reasonable opportunity to participate in these proceedings. Despite the Court's direction that counsel be appointed, no counsel has been appointed after fifteen days, leaving this matter indefinitely stalled, prejudicing the Plaintiff.


15 days after the Contempt Of Court declared by the Honorable Magistrate Dartanboy, no public defender have been assigned to the defendant. To this date, no formal assignment enforcing a public defender has been issued by this court (see Maxib02 V. ILatteralus [2026] DCR 32). Moreover, No private law firm have been consulted to counsel for the Defendant.

The plaintiff have the Constitutional Rights(32(9)) to a fair and speedy trial. this case has been dragging with no significant progress due to the Defendant's absence and failure to engage with the judicial process. The Defendant has been properly served through the filing of this complaint, has had ample notice of these proceedings, and has been afforded more than sufficient time to retain counsel or be assigned a Public Defender.

Also, the plaintiff may not be a able to get the Interlocutory Inspection Order due to the delay on the matter. This means this case may not produce the effects the Plaintiff was expecting.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter default judgment in favour of the Plaintiff and award all relief requested in the Prayer for Relief.

EDIT: Counsel Ilatteralus remains playing Democracycraft and will, therefore, continue serving as lead counsel in this matter

 

[Poker]

Since the previous Presiding Officer is no longer a Magistrate, the Plaintiff would like to kindly notify the court that a new one must be assigned to this case.

 

[Superwoops]

I am your Judge.

 

[Superwoops]

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

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court freezes assets belonging to Defendant ZapperyDoo to a total value of $16,800 for the duration of this trial. The purpose of this injunction is to prevent the Defendant from dispersing their assets or losing their assets as a result of their inactivity, which would cause great harm to the Plaintiff.

Is there any actual risk of dispersal of funds?
And, wherever possible, proof of such risk?

 

[Poker]

Your Honor, Defendant have not logged in since 8 July 2026 and Plaintiff fears that he may get Pruned soon by the DoC.

Per The Taxation Act, players inactive (with less than 6 hours accrued in the last month) for 3 consecutives months are eligible to be pruned by the Department of Commerce (entirety of their personal balance transferred to the DCGovernment balance)

Plaintiff fear that, if DoC taxes his balance, he may not be able to ever get the restitution (16,800$ for Unjust Enrichment) being asked in this court.

Plaintiff also submits P-005 (shows Defendant playtime).

Finally, Counsel thanks the Federal Court Judicial Officer for it's willingness to review the EI.

 

[Poker]

May the Court know I'm not Co- Counsel for this case anymore.

 

[CreeperTD]

The court finds ZapperyDoo in Contempt of Court for failing to appear.

A Public Defender will be appointed.

Present as a public defender, your honor.

 

[Superwoops]

Your Honor, Defendant have not logged in since 8 July 2026 and Plaintiff fears that he may get Pruned soon by the DoC.

Per The Taxation Act, players inactive (with less than 6 hours accrued in the last month) for 3 consecutives months are eligible to be pruned by the Department of Commerce (entirety of their personal balance transferred to the DCGovernment balance)

Plaintiff fear that, if DoC taxes his balance, he may not be able to ever get the restitution (16,800$ for Unjust Enrichment) being asked in this court.

Plaintiff also submits P-005 (shows Defendant playtime).

Finally, Counsel thanks the Federal Court Judicial Officer for it's willingness to review the EI.

EI granted. $16,800 shall be frozen.

 

[Superwoops]

Present as a public defender, your honor.

Please present an Answer within 72 hours.

 

[CreeperTD]

Your Honor,

Upon review, the Defense has discovered that a motion to amend made by the Plaintiff was never reflected in the initial complaint after approval. The Defense respectfully requests that these edits be made to the initial complaint to more clearer reflect its current state.

 

[Superwoops]

@ILatteralus please make all changes posted in your motion.

 

[CreeperTD]

Answer to Complaint

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

zPokebr_
Plaintiff

v.

ZapperyDoo (represented by CreeperTD on behalf of the Public Defender’s Office)
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defense does not contest that on June 21, 2026, the Plaintiff was actively managing and stocking their own retail establishment at plot cbd037 when they got hungry. Seeking nourishment, the Plaintiff utilized server-wide market-search tools to locate the lowest market price for standard bread, nearest their location, which directed them to the Defendant’s shop at commercial plot cbd040.
2. The Defense does not contest that upon entering the primary, highly prominent public entryway of plot cbd040, the Plaintiff approached a prominent retail "container" configured as a retail "Chestshop", noting that despite the Plaintiff’s assertion, there is no strict definition in law of what a “container” is.
3. The Defense denies that directly above the QuickShop transaction sign affixed to this container, the Defendant maintained an Item Frame holding a completely standard, un-enchanted loaf of food-grade bread, noting that there is no such thing as a “quickshop” in Redmont.
4. The Defense affirms that the transaction sign affixed to the backing barrel read: ZapperyDoo | Q 1 : C 0 | B300 | Bread#77d.
5. The Defense does not contest that at the exact time of the Plaintiff's entry, the physical blocks immediately adjacent to this entryway barrel were entirely devoid of signs, lectern books, or written notices informing consumers that this specific barrel contained a custom novelty good or a voluntary charitable "Donation.”
6. The Defense denies that the Plaintiff initially and mistakenly purchased a single unit for $300.00, and that the Plaintiff then immediately executed a standard bulk-purchase action ("shift-click") for an additional 55 units. The Defense denies that the purchases resulted in a cumulative acquisition of 56 units of bread at a total cost of $16,800.00. The Defense notes that the Plaintiff has provided evidence of none of these transactions.
7. The Defense does not contest that upon inspection of the dispensed inventory, the Plaintiff discovered the merchandise was not standard food stock, but an item custom-renamed at an anvil to "300$ Donation". The Defense denies that because the server's QuickShop plugin automatically parses custom-named strings into a base item name appended with a syntax serialization hash (Bread#77d), the actual words "300$ Donation" were completely concealed from the consumer prior to purchase.
8. The Defense denies that the Back-Alcove Funnel: Subsequent investigation revealed that the Defendant kept their actual, market-rate bread inventory hidden away in a recessed back alcove of the exact same plot, priced at B0.4. The Defense denies that tucking the $0.40 bread behind the deceptive B300 entryway barrel establishes an orchestrated, bad-faith physical funnel designed to catch passerby off guard.
9. The Defense denies that following the catastrophic $16,500.00 debit, the Defendant rushed back to commercial plot cbd040 and retroactively affixed a plain-text oak sign reading "donations" directly to the left of the B300 transaction sign; noting that the Plaintiff has failed to provide anything to identify the time at which the individual screenshots were taken. The Defense denies that this post-transaction alteration represents an intentional, bad-faith effort to destroy the original crime scene, spoliate evidence, and manufacture a fraudulent procedural defense for anticipated litigation.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Facts
The Plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the foundational facts of their case. The screenshots provided as evidence lack timestamps to identify when they were taken which, given their assertion that a change was made between the time of the incident and the time of filing, means that Plaintiff’s Fact 9 is entirely unsupported. Their facts refer to “Quickshops,” which do not exist in Redmont. This is just another example of the innate flaws in their complaint. Finally, the Plaintiff makes an unsupported assertion of law that containers are “defined strictly by law as anything capable of holding items at player discretion through in-game mechanics.” These deficiencies are striking, and only scratch the service of the deficiencies of the Plaintiff’s claims.

Additionally, the Plaintiff’s citations of law are deficient in the initial sections of their complaint. In particular, the entirety of Part II of the Plaintiff’s complaint is blatant perjury and makes false assertions of law. To quote this part in its entirety:

II. JURISDICTION & VENUE​

1. This Honorable Court holds subject-matter jurisdiction over this civil action pursuant to Part I, Section 6(1)(a) of the Criminal Code Act, which establishes the guiding legal principle that "in civil lawsuits, crimes may be used to seek damages."
2. The causes of action pleaded herein derive directly from the Defendant's commission of Indictable Corporate Offences, specifically Fraud and Misleading Advertising. Pursuant to Part I, Section 6(1)(b) of the Criminal Code Act, a prior criminal conviction is explicitly not a requirement for a crime to be regarded as a proven fact in a civil lawsuit; the civil standard of proof applies.

3. The Court possesses the inherent statutory authority to grant the requested financial restitution and equitable remedies pursuant to Part I, Section 5(4) of the Criminal Code Act, which authorizes judicial officers to impose lawful remedies including (compensatory) restitution and civil damages.

This case falls within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the District Court because the amount in controversy ($16,800.00) does not exceed the $120,000.00 limit for minor civil cases, and this Court is authorized to hear minor civil and criminal disputes in the first instance.

Although it is no longer reflected by the court filing, all references to the CCA are referring to The Repealed Criminal Code Act, which was the law in force at the time this lawsuit was first filed. The cited sections simply don’t say what the Plaintiff claims they say. Here is the exact text of each of those sections:
(1) Part I §6(1)(a) states: “The standard of proof for criminal cases is defined in the Judicial Standards Act.”
(2) Part I §6(1)(b) states: “The Court shall have jurisdiction over all indictable offences.”
(3) Part I §5(4) states: “Nothing in this section limits the authority of the courts to impose additional lawful remedies such as restitution, damages, or community service where such powers are established under this Code or another Act.”
The Plaintiff’s attempt to establish standing has, ironically, done more to give reason for them to not possess standing, as they have failed to ground their claims in the Redmont Civil Code Act, and have made assertions of law that don’t actually exist.

2. Count I
This claim of relief relies upon both a civil violation and a criminal offense, which is an odd choice, considering that their claims do not require any citation of the CCA. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant committed fraud, asserting that the Defendant, to quote Part VII §7(a), is committed when an individual “knowingly or recklessly misrepresents or omits a material fact to another, causing the other party to rely on that misrepresentation, resulting in actual, quantifiable harm.” Not only does the incident not meet this definition, but the Plaintiff has failed to establish a cause of action!

As stated by the Plaintiff on their facts, the sign which was interacted with by the Plaintiff in order to allegedly buy the product (evidence of which has not been provided to the court) stated in plain text the buy price of the bread, that being 300 DC$ (P-001). No misrepresentation was made to the Plaintiff in any way, shape, or form about the cost of the product, the only reason for their financial loss was their failure to notice the text of the sign, as well as the chat messages that would have shown after they purchased the goods. Even if no sign was placed to indicate that the item’s purpose was as a donation, that realization would be a reason for an individual to purchase the bread at such an absurd price, not a reason to not do so. Chestshop purchases are a legal form of a contract, with all the characteristics involved thereof. The Plaintiff failed to exercise due caution when making the purchase; no fault belongs to the Defendant. In fact, in the Plaintiff’s own evidence, it is shown that when the Plaintiff is standing in front of the sign from which they made their purchases, the directions at the top of their screen informs them that their destination was still 7 blocks away, and there is clearly a second row of shops in which a reasonable person would ascertain the bread shop would be contained within (P-001). The Plaintiff has provided the court with no convincing arguments that the Defendant intentionally deceived them in their conduct; in fact, they have done the opposite, stating in their fact 7 that the Chestshop plugin automatically renders renamed items in the way that the Defendant’s chestshop appeared. There was, clearly, something different about the bread in that chestshop compared to other chestshops, as can be seen by the example of the chestshop selling breach at normal prices in the Defendant’s shop (P-002).

The Plaintiff has failed to establish a cause of action for the court to consider their criminal claims at any point in their complaint that is based on actual law, and as such the Defense will from now on only note those claims for the sake of dismissing them out of hand. The Plaintiff at no point in this claim for relief explains how the Defendant committed the civil violation of Unjust Enrichment, and as such the Defense will, for now, ignore it.

3. Count II
The Plaintiff’s claim that the Defendant committed Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce is easily dismissed by a defense included in the text of the section itself. RCCA Part VI §3 states that:

This violation shall not occur where:
…
(c) the plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care in relying on the conduct.

Even if the Plaintiff’s claim that §9(9) of the Commercial Standards Act defines advertising as a physical in game display was true, rather than the real text of that subsection which states that a Commercial advertisement is “An advertisement intended to benefit or harm a privately owned or operated business” (a chestshop sign cannot be reasonably interpreted as an advertisement), it is apparent that the Plaintiff failed to “exercise reasonable care” when the incident took place. The Plaintiff is attempting to punish the Defendant for their own negligent conduct.

Lastly, an addition of a sign at any point in time (as the timeline of events in this case has not been properly established by the Plaintiff) is not an admission of guilt by the Defendant. The Defendant has not at any point communicated with the Plaintiff about the incident, at least not according to the evidence presented in this court, so claiming that the Defendant admitted anything is absurd. The Plaintiff cannot prove that the Defendant’s action of adding a sign was even a reaction to the incident described in this case, let alone that it was done with malicious intent, if it even happened in the way the Plaintiff described it.

4. Inspection Order in the Prayers for Relief?
The Plaintiff has, confusingly, asked the court to, upon the conclusion of the trial in the event of a verdict in their favor, order an inspection for the purposes of the proceedings, seemingly unaware that not only is this a valid prayer for relief, but that it would not be executed before the verdict in any case. Given the amount of time that has passed since the events described in this case, and the fact that the plot is no longer rented by the Defendant (D-001), it is reasonable to assume that such an inspection order would accomplish nothing for these proceedings, regardless.

5. The Other Prayers
The Plaintiff’s other prayers are based on incorrect legal assumptions, and two of them don't even exist. The prayer for “Evidentiary Sanctions” doesn’t exist within Redmont law, and assumes an intention to deceive the court that cannot be proven. The contract that was formed was entirely valid and was never breached, and the Plaintiff entered into it having been given all pertinent information as to what they would be paying, and what they would receive, and as such there is no reason for the contract to be rescinded. They then appear to ask to be given an additional 16800.00 DC$ in compensatory damages without explanation, and it assumes that in this incident, some damages were incurred, when all that happened was that the Plaintiff made an ill-advised purchase due to their own negligence. Finally, as stated before, the Defendant did not commit Misleading Conduct on Trading or Commerce, so they should not be held liable to pay any civil penalty units.


III. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: D-001

D-001: Screenshot of the results of running the command /realty info cbd040 on September 7th, 2026.

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 7th day of September 2026.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

Your Honor,

As stated in the above complaint, the Plaintiff’s counsel has made multiple false assertions of law, including:
(1) That Part I, Section 6(1)(a) of the Repealed - Criminal Code Act establishes the guiding legal principle that "in civil lawsuits, crimes may be used to seek damages."
(2) That Part I, Section 6(1)(b) of the Criminal Code Act provides that “a prior criminal conviction is explicitly not a requirement for a crime to be regarded as a proven fact in a civil lawsuit; the civil standard of proof applies.”
(3) That Part I, Section 5(4) of the Criminal Code Act “authorizes judicial officers to impose lawful remedies including (compensatory) restitution and civil damages.”
(4) That Section 9(9) of the Commercial Standards Act states that “a physical in-game display intended to benefit a privately owned business constitutes a Commercial Advertisement.”
All of these claims made by the Plaintiff in their complaint is manifestly false, and not only demonstrates a lack of care in preparing their complaint on the parts of both the Plaintiff’s Counsel and the Plaintiff, the latter of which amended the complaint while still including the text quoted in (4), but also constitutes a total lie to the court which serves to waste everyone’s time. The Defense humbly requests that both the Plaintiff’s counsel, ILatteralus, and the Plaintiff, zPokebr_, be held in Contempt of Court for engaging in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice, and that both be found guilty of Perjury, as well. The Defense also requests that all these false statements be struck from the court record, or that the Plaintiff be required to amend their complaint to remove and/or replace these statements.

Objection

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

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff’s prayers for relief include two that do not exist in Redmont law, an “Inspection order” (Prayer A) and “Evidentiary Sanctions” (Prayer B). Neither of these claims are contained in Redmont law, and are not based in Redmont law. The Plaintiff has made no arguments as to why either prayer should be granted as a novel form of relief. As such, the Defense humbly requests the court to strike both of these prayers for relief for being unable to be granted, and overall a waste of this court’s precious time.

Motion

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

Your Honor,

Fact 9 of the Plaintiff’s complaint is an unproven assertion that the Plaintiff cannot possibly prove at this point in time. The Defendant no longer owns the shop, and is unavailable for questioning as they have been inactive for some time at the time of this filing. This fact makes an unsubstantiated accusation of criminal conduct, and because of that, the Defense humbly requests that it be struck

 

[Poker]

Your Honor, I am in the process of finding a new lawyer, as I would not like to pursue this case myself. However, I respectfully ask for the opportunity to submit two separate responses to the Perjury Objection: one for me and one for my former counsel, if he wishes so.

I believe it would be unfair not to allow each of us to respond separately, as the Objection makes distinct allegations against both the Plaintiff (and his ex-co-counsel) and his former counsel. Moreover, the circumstances of each party were not necessarily the same at the time, and each should therefore have the opportunity to address the allegations made against them individually.

I further request 48 hours so i can delegate someone to this case. Thank you, Judge Superwoops.

 

[Superwoops]

Your Honor, I am in the process of finding a new lawyer, as I would not like to pursue this case myself. However, I respectfully ask for the opportunity to submit two separate responses to the Perjury Objection: one for me and one for my former counsel, if he wishes so.

I believe it would be unfair not to allow each of us to respond separately, as the Objection makes distinct allegations against both the Plaintiff (and his ex-co-counsel) and his former counsel. Moreover, the circumstances of each party were not necessarily the same at the time, and each should therefore have the opportunity to address the allegations made against them individually.

I further request 48 hours so i can delegate someone to this case. Thank you, Judge Superwoops.

That is permissible, deadlines tolled for 48 hours.

 

[Poker]

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO PERJURY

May it please the Court,

I) Court Rule 3.5
According to Procedure 3.5, Amendments to an Answer or Complaint cannot change information that was already submitted. I couldn't change any of the material submit prior to my entrance as a Co-Counsel in this case.

II) About the Amendment
Without the amendment, the case could be dismissed sua sponte. Initially, the claims only contained criminal violations, and we know the Plaintiff isn't The Commonwealth. All amendments I made in this case were on good faith.

III) Points (3)/(4).
There is no flaws. "Pursuant to" was used to identify the legal provision serving as the basis for the proposition that followed.

III.1) pursuant to Part I, Section 5(4) of the Criminal Code Act, which authorizes judicial officers to impose lawful remedies including (compensatory) restitution and civil damages.

The repealed CCA indeed alowed JOs to impose to impose lawful remedies including (compensatory) restitution and civil damages where such powers are established under this Code or another Act.

(4) Nothing in this section limits the authority of the courts to impose additional lawful remedies such as restitution, damages, or community service where such powers are established under this Code or another Act.

III.2) Pursuant to Section 9(9) of the Commercial Standards Act, a physical in-game display intended to benefit a privately owned business constitutes a "Commercial Advertisement."

By "physical in-game display", Ex-Counselor meant chestshop sign, which is a Commercial Advertisement when we think on Section 9(9) of the Commercial Standards Act. An public chestshop is shown in /find plugin, presents an product to an client and generate revenues to its private owner. Therefore, constitutes an Commercial Advertisement.

(9) Commercial Advertisement: An advertisement intended to benefit or harm a privately owned or operated business.

Finnaly, in none of those statements are a citation, they haven't even used quotation marks. They are a mere legal provision serving as the basis for the proposition that followed.

IV) Points (1)/(2)
I personally do not understand why Illateralus worded them this way, and I would prefer that he explain these points himself. Plaintiff does not oppose striking section II (JURISDICTION & VENUE), including those statements.

 

[Poker]

Plaintiff doesnt oppose to Breach Of Procedure objection.

I have assigned a new lawyer, he will show up in due time.

 

[Areaous]

Greetings, Your Honor. I will be the new lawyer on this case

 

[CreeperTD]

Your honor,

The Defense would like to humbly request rulings on the pending objections so that this case can move into discovery, especially considering the possibility that a change of counsel for the Defendant might soon be required.

 

[Superwoops]

Objection​

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

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff’s prayers for relief include two that do not exist in Redmont law, an “Inspection order” (Prayer A) and “Evidentiary Sanctions” (Prayer B). Neither of these claims are contained in Redmont law, and are not based in Redmont law. The Plaintiff has made no arguments as to why either prayer should be granted as a novel form of relief. As such, the Defense humbly requests the court to strike both of these prayers for relief for being unable to be granted, and overall a waste of this court’s precious time.

Objection sustained. It will be struck.