Lawsuit: Pending ZxRiptide v. MasterCaelen [2026] FCR 21

[Johnes]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


ZxRiptide
Plaintiff

v.

MasterCaelen
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

ZxRiptide entered into a binding contract between himself and MasterCaelen to provide consulting. In return, MasterCaelen paid $250,000 every fourteen (14) days. The Contract included a provision for a collateral, in which if MasterCaelen did not pay the agreed upon amount or was deported/banned, ZxRiptide would gain ownership over the collateral.

I. PARTIES
1. ZxRiptide
2. MasterCaelen

II. FACTS
1. On the 27th of February 2026 Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a consulting contract ("Contract"), where the Plaintiff offered consulting to the Defendant. (P-001, P-005)
2. In return, Defendant paid the Plaintiff $250,000 every fourteen (14) days. (P-001)
3. Defendant posted a collateral in the Contract. (P-001)
4. The Contract was amended the 8th of March 2026 pursuant to § 14 thereof. (P-001)
5. This amendment was made in a ticket and signed by both parties and witnessed by Attorney Johnes, digitally signed. (P-001, P-004)
6. The amended Contract includes the following properties as collateral: (P-001)

r103​

r130​

s002​

s016​

av-gas​

s044​

s043​

s042​

s041​

or-c007​

c614​

c643​

c638​

c635​

c637​

c636​

c006​

c010​

av-r001​

s109​

s117​

i021​

r070​

rh018​

av-c020​

av-c021​

av-c026​

c589​

c104​

c367​

c366​

c368​

c369​

rh033​

c119​

c143​

c145​

c144​

c147​

c146​

c149​

c148​

c370​

c371​

c150​

or-tidmouth​

7. Defendant posted Kantonic, a sole proprietorship as collateral in the amended Contract. (In-game name RKB) (P-001)
8. The collateral belongs to the Defendant as of the time of filing. (P-003)
9. On the 24th of March, Defendant was deported for six (6) months. (P-002)
10. Defendant's deportation is longer than the two (2) week Payment Period stated in the Contract.
11. § 4.4.1 of the Contract states: "If the Consultee is deported for a period exceeding a Payment Period, the Consultant has a right to claim ownership of the Collateral." (P-001)
12. Plaintiff has a right to Defendant's collateral according to § 4.4.1 of the Contract.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Plaintiff has a right to Defendant's collateral
According to § 15.2 of the Contract, the Defendant (in the Contract referred to as the Consultee) posted appropriate Collateral stated in Fact #6.
Specifically, § 15.1 states:

If the Consultee does not pay the fees stated in § 10 of this Agreement for a period of 5 days after the deadline; or if the Consultee cannot by any means available to him fulfill that obligation; or is insolvent and is in default then the Consultant has a right to claim all of the Collateral and if the Consultee cannot continue to fulfill the obligation in § 10 of this Agreement for a period exceeding 7 days from the point the Consultant claimed the Collateral, the Consultant retains ownership of all of the Collateral.

Furthermore, § 15.2 states:

If the Consultee is deported for a period exceeding a Payment Period, the Consultant has a right to claim ownership of the Collateral.

This establishes the fact that if Defendant is deported for a period exceeding the next Payment Period, which is defined as two (2) weeks, the Plaintiff gains to claim ownership over the collateral.
Since Defendant is deported for a period of 6 months, the Plaintiff has a right to claim ownership of the collateral.
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The transfer of the properties listed in the collateral, as well as Kantonic.

Spoiler: P-001

See P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: P-004

See P-004

Spoiler: P-005

Spoiler: Proof of representation

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 31st day of March 2026

Motion

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

Your Honour,
the Plaintiff respectfully moves, that any future DCT auctions surrounding the collateral posted in Fact #6 are for the duration of this trial paused.

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Your Honour,
while unusual that we request default judgment for a temporarily deported player, staff themselves in a ticket clarified, that they treat Defendant as a permanently deported player due to the long duration of his deport, thus we ask that you grant default judgment.

Spoiler: Staff ticket

 

[Vennefly]

Your honour,

If it pleases the Court, on behalf of my client, SoggehToast, I respectfully request leave to file an amicus brief addressing the nature of the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff.

In Aventura,

Signed,
Venne Montclair.
Attorney.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[Franciscus]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE — APPLICATION FOR AMICUS BRIEF (Post No. 2)

Your honour,

If it pleases the Court, on behalf of my client, SoggehToast, I respectfully request leave to file an amicus brief addressing the nature of the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff.

In Aventura,

Signed,
Venne Montclair.
Attorney.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

View attachment 78102

The amicus request is considered. However, the Regulations of the Federal Court require specific content to be in an application to file an amicus brief:

3.2. An application under this section shall state:
(a) the interest of the movant in the subject matter of the case;
(b) an affirmative statement attesting that the movant has no personal, pecuniary, or outcome-based interest in the disposition of the case; and
(c) that the proposed brief concerns a legal argument arising from constitutional principles, historical development of law, overturned or modified precedent, or a uniquely situated legal issue.
3.3. The Court may issue Contempt of Court charges where an amicus application is materially deficient, misleading, or causes the Court to be misapprehended.

(RFC, Section 3(2)-(3)).

The Court is not satisfied that the application to submit the amicus brief satisfies each requirement under Section 3(2), and the Court is thus contemplating denial of the request.

That being said, I will allow 48 hours for the Counsel of SoggehToast ( @Vennefly ) to submit a revised application that responds to the deficiencies identified above. I will not be holding you in contempt for the initial application; despite the apparent deficiencies in the application, this has not been materially disruptive to an extent where sanctions would be warranted.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

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

Your Honour,
the Plaintiff respectfully moves, that any future DCT auctions surrounding the collateral posted in Fact #6 are for the duration of this trial paused.

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER — MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION (Post No. 1)

Granted.

For the duration of this case, the plots below may not be sold, auctioned, nor transferred. Any such sales, auctions, or transfers begun or completed after the issuance of this emergency injunction are void ab initio.

r103​

r130​

s002​

s016​

av-gas​

s044​

s043​

s042​

s041​

or-c007​

c614​

c643​

c638​

c635​

c637​

c636​

c006​

c010​

av-r001​

s109​

s117​

i021​

r070​

rh018​

av-c020​

av-c021​

av-c026​

c589​

c104​

c367​

c366​

c368​

c369​

rh033​

c119​

c143​

c145​

c144​

c147​

c146​

c149​

c148​

c370​

c371​

c150​

or-tidmouth​

Writ of Summons

Attorney General @Dogeington is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of ZxRiptide v. MasterCaelen [2026] FCR 21

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.

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF MANDAMUS

The Court, while conducting research for this case, is concerned that the Commonwealth, who is not named as party, may have a material interest in at least some of these properties.

Within 72 hours, the Commonwealth is to provide this Court a brief addressing the following 2 questions:

1. To what extent does the Commonwealth have a material interest in the properties affected by the emergency injunction issued above?
2. How would granting of all prayers in this case affect the material interests of the Commonwealth?

This information is necessary for clarifying whether or not the Court shall order Joinder of this case, as joined may be ordered when an “additional party claims an interest in the subject matter such that disposing of the case without them may impair their ability to protect that interest“ (RCCA, Part IV, Section 6(1)(b)).

This Writ is thus issued in line with Part V, Section 2(1) of the Judicial Standards Act.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

 

[Vennefly]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE — APPLICATION FOR AMICUS BRIEF (Post No. 2)


The amicus request is considered. However, the Regulations of the Federal Court require specific content to be in an application to file an amicus brief:


(RFC, Section 3(2)-(3)).

The Court is not satisfied that the application to submit the amicus brief satisfies each requirement under Section 3(2), and the Court is thus contemplating denial of the request.

That being said, I will allow 48 hours for the Counsel of SoggehToast ( @Vennefly ) to submit a revised application that responds to the deficiencies identified above. I will not be holding you in contempt for the initial application; despite the apparent deficiencies in the application, this has not been materially disruptive to an extent where sanctions would be warranted.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

Your honour,

If it pleases the Court, on behalf of my client, SoggehToast, I respectfully request leave to file an amicus brief addressing the nature of the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff.

My Client wishes to file the proposed brief as they have discovered information which is essential for this Honourable Court to know in order to reach an informed Verdict in this case. He wishes to file this brief in the interest of justice. My Client has no personal, pecuniary, or outcome-based interest in the disposition of the case.

The proposed brief concerns facts and legal arguments on a uniquely situated legal issue in this case.

In Aventura,

Signed,
Venne Montclair.
Attorney.

 

[Franciscus]

Your honour,

If it pleases the Court, on behalf of my client, SoggehToast, I respectfully request leave to file an amicus brief addressing the nature of the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff.

My Client wishes to file the proposed brief as they have discovered information which is essential for this Honourable Court to know in order to reach an informed Verdict in this case. He wishes to file this brief in the interest of justice. My Client has no personal, pecuniary, or outcome-based interest in the disposition of the case.

The proposed brief concerns facts and legal arguments on a uniquely situated legal issue in this case.

In Aventura,

Signed,
Venne Montclair.
Attorney.

Granted. Please file the brief within 72 hours.

 

[Dogeington]

Present, Your Honour

 

[Franciscus]

Present, Your Honour

Thank you fo your prompt appearance.

You have 72 hours from the time of Post No. 4‘s posting to this thread to present the brief.

 

[Vennefly]

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
AMICUS BRIEF

Your Honour,

If it pleases the Court, SoggehToast, by counsel Venne Montclair, respectfully submits this amicus curiae brief.

I. OVERVIEW
On the surface, the case presently before the Court looks to be a dime a dozen. A simple contract, like many others before it, where one party has unfortunately not been able to uphold their end of the deal, resulting in them forfeiting their collateral. However, this could not be further from the truth.

The amicus has obtained evidence which, in the best case, shows that evidence crucial to the Plaintiff's case has been fabricated, and in the worst case demonstrates a deliberate conspiracy between Plaintiff and Defendant to circumvent justice. Specifically, the edit history of the document in which the alleged Agreement was written appears to show that the document was created only after the Defendant had already been deported, despite being presented as though it had been written weeks earlier.

If that is so, then this is not merely a contractual dispute. It is a case in which the Court may have been asked to rely upon backdated and fabricated evidence in order to transfer substantial assets.

II. FACTUAL SUBMISSION BY THE AMICUS
The amicus submits that he obtained evidence showing that the Agreement attached as P-001 was, in fact, drawn up on the 25th of March and signed on the 30th of March 2026, after the Defendant had already been deported. The Agreement was subsequently backdated and other evidence fabricated. To this end, the amicus submits the following facts and evidence into the record.

1. Defendant was deported from DemocracyCraft on the 24th of March 2026 at 20:34 GMT (A-001).
2. The edit history of the Google Document shown in P-005 as being sent from Plaintiff to the Defendant on the 27th of February 2026 shows that the entirety of the document was written by Johnes (Plaintiff's counsel) on the 25th of March 2026 around 21:43 GMT+1 (A-002). This initial Agreement was therefore drawn up after Defendant's deportation, suggesting that P-005 has been tampered with.
3. According to Plaintiffs own evidence, the tool allegedly used to sign the Amended Agreement, "Verdict Labs", is owned and operated by Defendant. See P-004, specifically where Defendant allegedly says "And we are moving to my new digital contract system" (emphasis mine).
4. The URL to the Amended Agreement on Verdict Labs' website contained in Plaintiff's P-004 is publicly available on the internet: Verdict - DemocracyCraft Legal Assistant.
5. Analysis of the data returned by Verdict Labs' API (request attached as A-003, response attached as A-004) shows significant discrepancies in the returned data specifically surrounding the date on which the Amended Agreement was signed:
   • It shows that, although Verdict Labs reports that the Amended Agreement had been created on the 27th of February 2026, it was updated in the database as late as the 30th of March 2026 (A-005).
   • It shows that, although Verdict Labs reports that Plaintiff, Plaintiff's counsel and Defendant each signed the Amended Agreement on the 9th or 10th of March 2026, they were only first invited to sign it on the 30th of March 2026 (A-006).
6. Analysis of the metadata of the Amended Agreement attached by Plaintiff as P-001 further shows that the document has been generated on the 30th of March 2026 (A-007).
7. This suggests that the Amended Agreement had also been drawn up and signed after Defendant had been deported, rather than before it, and that P-001 has been tampered with.
8. Analysis of publicly accessible WHOIS information for verdict-labs.com, accessible by entering the domain name on ICANN Lookup, shows that the domain verdict-labs.com came into existence on the 8th of March 2026 at 23:46 UTC (A-008).
9. Meanwhile, Plaintiff's P-004 shows a message allegedly sent by Defendant with a URL to verdict-labs.com timestamped 8th of March 2026 at 10:46 AM (timezone unknown). Unless the displayed timezone of the message was UTC-13 or below (timezones which do not exist anywhere on earth), the domain name verdict-labs.com could not have been registered at the time the message was allegedly sent. This calls into question the authenticity of P-004 and suggests that this document has also been tampered with.
10. These facts also suggest that Plaintiff, Plaintiff's counsel and Defendant conspired to forge these documents and to pass of these (partially) forged documents as real. After all, it shows that each of them played a part in the creation of the forged documents or in passing them off as real, which they neglected to mention to the Court. Although Defendant is unable to mention such a thing to the Court due to being deported, Defendant owns verdict-labs.com and Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff's counsel could not have forged the Amended Agreement without his assistance or knowledge.

III. LEGAL ANALYSIS
The factual analysis by the amicus shows that Plaintiff, Plaintiff's counsel and Defendant conspired to create several documents introduced in this case as evidence. If that is so, then the matter before the Court is not merely a failed contractual claim supported by weak evidence. It is a grave abuse of the judicial process, in which fabricated documents may have been placed before the Court in order to obtain assets through fraud.

A party seeking relief from this Court must do so on the basis of authentic and reliable evidence. Where the principal documents relied upon by that party appear to have been created only after the events they purport to record, backdated, and then presented as genuine, the Court cannot safely rely upon them. Indeed, to do so would be to permit the judicial process itself to be used as the instrument of a fraud.

That is especially so here. Plaintiff's claim depends on the existence of a valid Agreement and Amended Agreement entered into before Defendant's deportation. Yet the evidence submitted by the amicus indicates that both P-001 and the supporting exhibits P-004 and P-005 were tampered with. If those documents are unreliable, then the Court is left without any credible basis on which to conclude that Plaintiff is lawfully entitled to the assets he seeks.

Further, deported players have no rights in Redmont and no right to appear, defend, or act through representation in court. On that footing, a deported individual, such as Defendant, could not lawfully enter into fresh agreements or amendments after deportation, still less agreements designed to affect the disposition of his assets. Any purported post-deportation contract or amendment would therefore be void or of no legal effect.

Moreover, the apparent involvement of Plaintiff, Plaintiff's counsel and Defendant in the creation or use of these documents aggravates the matter considerably. This would not be a mere misunderstanding, clerical error, or innocent mistake. It would amount to a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court on a matter central to the relief sought. Such conduct strikes at the heart of the administration of justice and cannot be treated lightly.

The apparent object of that conduct is also plain. The Agreement, if accepted as genuine, would place Defendant's assets into Plaintiff's hands as a supposedly trusted party at precisely the moment Defendant, by reason of deportation, could no longer protect those assets himself. In Redmont, deported players' property may be evicted or seized through the ordinary legal procedures. The inference therefore arises that Plaintiff, Plaintiff's counsel and Defendant sought to move those assets into Plaintiff's hands in order to shield them from the consequences that would otherwise follow from Defendant's deportation.

If the Court accepts the factual showing made by the amicus, the conduct described above appears to amount not merely to civil misconduct, but to criminal wrongdoing under Redmont law. The Criminal Code Act makes Perjury an indictable offence where a person knowingly provides false testimony in a court of law, and Contempt of Court a summary offence where a person engages in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice. The same Act also criminalises Conspiracy to commit a crime.

On the facts set out by the amicus, Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel did not merely file weak evidence or misapprehend the record. They appear to have submitted documents they knew had been backdated or tampered with, while inviting the Court to treat those documents as genuine and pre-existing. They then affirmed that those documents were authentic. That conduct amounts to Perjury. And by placing fabricated evidence before the Court in support of relief, they appear to have engaged in conduct that at minimum interferes with, and indeed obstructs, the administration of justice, thereby constituting Contempt of Court.

Further, because the evidence suggests coordinated action among Plaintiff, Plaintiff's counsel, and Defendant in creating, backdating, and deploying these materials, this is not only individual misconduct but can also be characterised as Conspiracy to commit the relevant offences.

To the extent the Court finds that false statements were knowingly advanced through forged or altered exhibits in order to obtain judicial relief that would otherwise not be available, there is a substantial basis to conclude that criminal liability may arise for perjury, contempt of court, and conspiracy to commit those offences. That is not the object of this case, but it does demonstrate that the conduct here is exceptionally serious and directly attacks the integrity of these proceedings.

IV. CONCLUSION
Your Honour, this is, of course, only an amicus brief. The amicus does not presume to decide the matter, but only to assist the Court as best he can. Even so, on the record now before the Court, it appears that the proper course would be to dismiss this case in its entirety.

If the documents at the heart of Plaintiff's claim were created after Defendant's deportation, backdated, and then presented to the Court as genuine, then this is not simply a weak case or an overreaching one. It is a fraud upon the Court. In the amicus' and his Counsel's respectful submission, this is one of the most egregious examples of litigation fraud they have seen: a case in which the Court appears to have been asked to transfer substantial assets on the strength of fabricated and tampered evidence.

Nor does the matter end with dismissal. If the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel knowingly placed false evidence before it, then there is a strong basis to allege that they have committed perjury, contempt of court, and conspiracy to commit those offences under the Criminal Code Act.

It would therefore seem appropriate, in addition to dismissing the case, for the Court to charge Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel with Contempt of Court, and to impose the steepest sanctions the law and the dignity of these proceedings permit, including conduct strikes. In addition, it would seem appropriate to refer the matter to the Department of Justice for further investigation of the indictable offences.

The Court is entrusted with the fair and orderly administration of justice, and that task depends upon the honesty of those who come before it. Ordinary disputes of fact and law are for the Court to resolve. But where Parties or counsel knowingly manufacture evidence in order to obtain relief, they do more than weaken their own case. They undermine the integrity of the judicial process itself. If that is what has occurred here, then the amicus respectfully submits that the Court should address it plainly, act firmly, and ensure that those responsible are held fully to account.

In Aventura,

Signed,
Venne Montclair.
Attorney.

Spoiler: A-001

Spoiler: A-002

Spoiler: A-003

Spoiler: A-004

Returned data attached as A-004.json.zip.

Spoiler: A-005

Spoiler: A-006

Spoiler: A-007

Spoiler: A-008

 

[Franciscus]

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
AMICUS BRIEF

Your Honour,

If it pleases the Court, SoggehToast, by counsel Venne Montclair, respectfully submits this amicus curiae brief.

I. OVERVIEW
On the surface, the case presently before the Court looks to be a dime a dozen. A simple contract, like many others before it, where one party has unfortunately not been able to uphold their end of the deal, resulting in them forfeiting their collateral. However, this could not be further from the truth.

The amicus has obtained evidence which, in the best case, shows that evidence crucial to the Plaintiff's case has been fabricated, and in the worst case demonstrates a deliberate conspiracy between Plaintiff and Defendant to circumvent justice. Specifically, the edit history of the document in which the alleged Agreement was written appears to show that the document was created only after the Defendant had already been deported, despite being presented as though it had been written weeks earlier.

If that is so, then this is not merely a contractual dispute. It is a case in which the Court may have been asked to rely upon backdated and fabricated evidence in order to transfer substantial assets.

II. FACTUAL SUBMISSION BY THE AMICUS
The amicus submits that he obtained evidence showing that the Agreement attached as P-001 was, in fact, drawn up on the 25th of March and signed on the 30th of March 2026, after the Defendant had already been deported. The Agreement was subsequently backdated and other evidence fabricated. To this end, the amicus submits the following facts and evidence into the record.

1. Defendant was deported from DemocracyCraft on the 24th of March 2026 at 20:34 GMT (A-001).
2. The edit history of the Google Document shown in P-005 as being sent from Plaintiff to the Defendant on the 27th of February 2026 shows that the entirety of the document was written by Johnes (Plaintiff's counsel) on the 25th of March 2026 around 21:43 GMT+1 (A-002). This initial Agreement was therefore drawn up after Defendant's deportation, suggesting that P-005 has been tampered with.
3. According to Plaintiffs own evidence, the tool allegedly used to sign the Amended Agreement, "Verdict Labs", is owned and operated by Defendant. See P-004, specifically where Defendant allegedly says "And we are moving to my new digital contract system" (emphasis mine).
4. The URL to the Amended Agreement on Verdict Labs' website contained in Plaintiff's P-004 is publicly available on the internet: Verdict - DemocracyCraft Legal Assistant.
5. Analysis of the data returned by Verdict Labs' API (request attached as A-003, response attached as A-004) shows significant discrepancies in the returned data specifically surrounding the date on which the Amended Agreement was signed:
   • It shows that, although Verdict Labs reports that the Amended Agreement had been created on the 27th of February 2026, it was updated in the database as late as the 30th of March 2026 (A-005).
   • It shows that, although Verdict Labs reports that Plaintiff, Plaintiff's counsel and Defendant each signed the Amended Agreement on the 9th or 10th of March 2026, they were only first invited to sign it on the 30th of March 2026 (A-006).
6. Analysis of the metadata of the Amended Agreement attached by Plaintiff as P-001 further shows that the document has been generated on the 30th of March 2026 (A-007).
7. This suggests that the Amended Agreement had also been drawn up and signed after Defendant had been deported, rather than before it, and that P-001 has been tampered with.
8. Analysis of publicly accessible WHOIS information for verdict-labs.com, accessible by entering the domain name on ICANN Lookup, shows that the domain verdict-labs.com came into existence on the 8th of March 2026 at 23:46 UTC (A-008).
9. Meanwhile, Plaintiff's P-004 shows a message allegedly sent by Defendant with a URL to verdict-labs.com timestamped 8th of March 2026 at 10:46 AM (timezone unknown). Unless the displayed timezone of the message was UTC-13 or below (timezones which do not exist anywhere on earth), the domain name verdict-labs.com could not have been registered at the time the message was allegedly sent. This calls into question the authenticity of P-004 and suggests that this document has also been tampered with.
10. These facts also suggest that Plaintiff, Plaintiff's counsel and Defendant conspired to forge these documents and to pass of these (partially) forged documents as real. After all, it shows that each of them played a part in the creation of the forged documents or in passing them off as real, which they neglected to mention to the Court. Although Defendant is unable to mention such a thing to the Court due to being deported, Defendant owns verdict-labs.com and Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff's counsel could not have forged the Amended Agreement without his assistance or knowledge.

III. LEGAL ANALYSIS
The factual analysis by the amicus shows that Plaintiff, Plaintiff's counsel and Defendant conspired to create several documents introduced in this case as evidence. If that is so, then the matter before the Court is not merely a failed contractual claim supported by weak evidence. It is a grave abuse of the judicial process, in which fabricated documents may have been placed before the Court in order to obtain assets through fraud.

A party seeking relief from this Court must do so on the basis of authentic and reliable evidence. Where the principal documents relied upon by that party appear to have been created only after the events they purport to record, backdated, and then presented as genuine, the Court cannot safely rely upon them. Indeed, to do so would be to permit the judicial process itself to be used as the instrument of a fraud.

That is especially so here. Plaintiff's claim depends on the existence of a valid Agreement and Amended Agreement entered into before Defendant's deportation. Yet the evidence submitted by the amicus indicates that both P-001 and the supporting exhibits P-004 and P-005 were tampered with. If those documents are unreliable, then the Court is left without any credible basis on which to conclude that Plaintiff is lawfully entitled to the assets he seeks.

Further, deported players have no rights in Redmont and no right to appear, defend, or act through representation in court. On that footing, a deported individual, such as Defendant, could not lawfully enter into fresh agreements or amendments after deportation, still less agreements designed to affect the disposition of his assets. Any purported post-deportation contract or amendment would therefore be void or of no legal effect.

Moreover, the apparent involvement of Plaintiff, Plaintiff's counsel and Defendant in the creation or use of these documents aggravates the matter considerably. This would not be a mere misunderstanding, clerical error, or innocent mistake. It would amount to a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court on a matter central to the relief sought. Such conduct strikes at the heart of the administration of justice and cannot be treated lightly.

The apparent object of that conduct is also plain. The Agreement, if accepted as genuine, would place Defendant's assets into Plaintiff's hands as a supposedly trusted party at precisely the moment Defendant, by reason of deportation, could no longer protect those assets himself. In Redmont, deported players' property may be evicted or seized through the ordinary legal procedures. The inference therefore arises that Plaintiff, Plaintiff's counsel and Defendant sought to move those assets into Plaintiff's hands in order to shield them from the consequences that would otherwise follow from Defendant's deportation.

If the Court accepts the factual showing made by the amicus, the conduct described above appears to amount not merely to civil misconduct, but to criminal wrongdoing under Redmont law. The Criminal Code Act makes Perjury an indictable offence where a person knowingly provides false testimony in a court of law, and Contempt of Court a summary offence where a person engages in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice. The same Act also criminalises Conspiracy to commit a crime.

On the facts set out by the amicus, Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel did not merely file weak evidence or misapprehend the record. They appear to have submitted documents they knew had been backdated or tampered with, while inviting the Court to treat those documents as genuine and pre-existing. They then affirmed that those documents were authentic. That conduct amounts to Perjury. And by placing fabricated evidence before the Court in support of relief, they appear to have engaged in conduct that at minimum interferes with, and indeed obstructs, the administration of justice, thereby constituting Contempt of Court.

Further, because the evidence suggests coordinated action among Plaintiff, Plaintiff's counsel, and Defendant in creating, backdating, and deploying these materials, this is not only individual misconduct but can also be characterised as Conspiracy to commit the relevant offences.

To the extent the Court finds that false statements were knowingly advanced through forged or altered exhibits in order to obtain judicial relief that would otherwise not be available, there is a substantial basis to conclude that criminal liability may arise for perjury, contempt of court, and conspiracy to commit those offences. That is not the object of this case, but it does demonstrate that the conduct here is exceptionally serious and directly attacks the integrity of these proceedings.

IV. CONCLUSION
Your Honour, this is, of course, only an amicus brief. The amicus does not presume to decide the matter, but only to assist the Court as best he can. Even so, on the record now before the Court, it appears that the proper course would be to dismiss this case in its entirety.

If the documents at the heart of Plaintiff's claim were created after Defendant's deportation, backdated, and then presented to the Court as genuine, then this is not simply a weak case or an overreaching one. It is a fraud upon the Court. In the amicus' and his Counsel's respectful submission, this is one of the most egregious examples of litigation fraud they have seen: a case in which the Court appears to have been asked to transfer substantial assets on the strength of fabricated and tampered evidence.

Nor does the matter end with dismissal. If the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel knowingly placed false evidence before it, then there is a strong basis to allege that they have committed perjury, contempt of court, and conspiracy to commit those offences under the Criminal Code Act.

It would therefore seem appropriate, in addition to dismissing the case, for the Court to charge Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel with Contempt of Court, and to impose the steepest sanctions the law and the dignity of these proceedings permit, including conduct strikes. In addition, it would seem appropriate to refer the matter to the Department of Justice for further investigation of the indictable offences.

The Court is entrusted with the fair and orderly administration of justice, and that task depends upon the honesty of those who come before it. Ordinary disputes of fact and law are for the Court to resolve. But where Parties or counsel knowingly manufacture evidence in order to obtain relief, they do more than weaken their own case. They undermine the integrity of the judicial process itself. If that is what has occurred here, then the amicus respectfully submits that the Court should address it plainly, act firmly, and ensure that those responsible are held fully to account.

In Aventura,

Signed,
Venne Montclair.
Attorney.

Spoiler: A-001

View attachment 78106

Spoiler: A-002

View attachment 78108

Spoiler: A-003

View attachment 78109View attachment 78110

Spoiler: A-004

Returned data attached as A-004.json.zip.

Spoiler: A-005

View attachment 78112

Spoiler: A-006

View attachment 78113

Spoiler: A-007

View attachment 78115

Spoiler: A-008

View attachment 78116

Thank you, counselor.

The Plaintiff ( @Johnes ) will have 72 hours to respond to this brief. Ruling on default judgement will not come until after.

 

[MJL]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

MOTION TO INTERVENE

MJL_
Movant
v.

ZxRiptide v. MasterCaelen
[2026] FCR 21


TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT:

Given precedent set in INTERLOCUTORY MasterCaelen v. Hon. Magistrate Dr_Eksplosive, I hereby move to intervene in the above-captioned case as co-defendant.

STATEMENT OF INTEREST

At present, I am the lawful and legal owner of plot c006. This plot was conveyed to me by Defendant MasterCaelen (dm-01).

REASONS FOR INTERVENTION

At present, Plaintiff ZxRiptide has made a conflicting claim of ownership towards c006 in their opening statement due to c006's inclusion in P-001.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, I respectfully request that this Court grant this Motion to Intervene and permit me to participate in this case as co-defendant.

Respectfully submitted,
MJL

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 31st day of March 2026

Spoiler: dm-01

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

MOTION TO INTERVENE

MJL_
Movant
v.

ZxRiptide v. MasterCaelen
[2026] FCR 21


TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT:

Given precedent set in INTERLOCUTORY MasterCaelen v. Hon. Magistrate Dr_Eksplosive, I hereby move to intervene in the above-captioned case as co-defendant.

STATEMENT OF INTEREST

At present, I am the lawful and legal owner of plot c006. This plot was conveyed to me by Defendant MasterCaelen (dm-01).

REASONS FOR INTERVENTION

At present, Plaintiff ZxRiptide has made a conflicting claim of ownership towards c006 in their opening statement due to c006's inclusion in P-001.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, I respectfully request that this Court grant this Motion to Intervene and permit me to participate in this case as co-defendant.

Respectfully submitted,
MJL

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 31st day of March 2026

Spoiler: dm-01

View attachment 78135
View attachment 78136

Hello MJL,

In general, individuals should ask leave of the Court before making a filing that would seek to join themselves to a case; we don't have a motion to intervene in the Court rules, and non-parties may be held in contempt for making filings without leave of the Court.

That being said, a Court may order joinder when an "additional party claims an interest in the subject matter such that disposing of the case without them may impair their ability to protect that interest“ (RCCA, Part IV, Section 6(1)(b)). Substantively, this filing (treated as a request for joinder rather than a formal motion to intervene) may plausibly allege such an interest, so in the interest of keeping the case thread compact (as opposed to having the Court strike the filing, order permission to be asked to make the filing, receive a request for permission, grant permission, and then having intevenor re-file) we will move forward.

As such, the Plaintiff (cc: @Johnes) will have 72 hours to respond to the request by MJL to join the case as a co-defendant as it pertains to plot c006.

 

[Julia_]

Your Honour,
Representing my client, Jakkuwu, I'd like to inform this Court that Defendant MasterCaelen had a loan contract with my client. This loan contract contained a provision in which 25 plots of my client's choosing would be transferred in the case of a default. While we understand that we are not a party to this case, given the potential conflict between the contract between my client and Defendant, and the contract between Plaintiff and Defendant, we request a sidebar and/or leave of the Court to formally intervene.

Respectfully Submitted,
Julia V. Tempest, representing Jakkuwu

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honour,
Representing my client, Jakkuwu, I'd like to inform this Court that Defendant MasterCaelen had a loan contract with my client. This loan contract contained a provision in which 25 plots of my client's choosing would be transferred in the case of a default. While we understand that we are not a party to this case, given the potential conflict between the contract between my client and Defendant, and the contract between Plaintiff and Defendant, we request a sidebar and/or leave of the Court to formally intervene.

Respectfully Submitted,
Julia V. Tempest, representing Jakkuwu

Leave of the Court to intervene is granted. Within 72 hours, file a brief evidencing your client has "an interest in the subject matter such that disposing of the case without them may impair their ability to protect that interest". Please provide proof of representation concurrently with that brief.