Lawsuit: In Session Krisztie v. zko0 [2025] FCR 13

Freeze_Line

Freeze_Line

Citizen
Attorney General
Justice Department
Supporter
Oakridge Resident
Legal Eagle Order of Redmont
Freeze_Line
Freeze_Line
Attorney General
Joined
Jun 25, 2021
Messages
232

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Krisztie (Represented by Freeze_Line)
Plaintiff

v.

zko0
Defendant


COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On February 6th at 11:41, the defendant, zko0, posted a listing on the marketplace claiming to sell “Tier 1 Supporter” ranks in exchange for money, as seen in P-001. The defendant was also willing to sell multiple ranks for the right price, as also seen in P-001. The plaintiff later contacted the defendant about purchasing a Tier 1 Rank, and they both agreed on the sum of $47,000, as seen in P-002. They entered into an agreement, which the defendant subsequently failed to uphold.

The plaintiff transferred $47,000 for the Tier 1 Rank, which both parties agreed to, as seen in P-003. After receiving the money, the defendant outrageously told the plaintiff, "Thanks for the free money," as seen in P-004. The defendant then emphasized this by mocking the plaintiff, asking how it felt to lose $47,000 (P-005), telling the plaintiff to "have fun being 50k poorer" (P-006), and making the situation even more traumatic and humiliating by stating that the plaintiff was scammed with ease and now had to “rebuild hours of work from just one interaction”. The defendant then thanked the plaintiff for the "scamming experience" and called them a peasant, as seen in P-007.

This case is not just about stolen money, it’s about the severe emotional and psychological damage the defendant inflicted on the plaintiff. The soul-crushing insults, the sheer audacity to degrade an equal citizen, and the malicious intent behind these actions are absolutely immoral. The defendant didn’t do this just for the money; they did it for the "experience," the feeling of power that comes from exploiting someone’s hard work and dedication. No amount of money can fully mend the damages caused by the defendant, and they must face justice for their cruel and immoral actions.

Furthermore, the defendant's marketplace listing attracted other potential buyers, putting them at risk of experiencing the same fraud and humiliation. The defendant acted with clear malice, with the sole intent of stealing money and emotionally tormenting their victim. We cannot allow such harmful behavior to continue. The defendant’s malicious intent, willful deception, and immoral humiliation of the plaintiff make it imperative that they face the full extent of justice to deter similar behavior in the future. The plaintiff deserves to be fully compensated for the extensive financial and emotional harm inflicted by the defendant.


I. PARTIES
1. Krizstie
2. ZK


II. FACTS
1. The defendant created a marketplace listing offering to sell Tier 1 Ranks in exchange for money.
2. The defendant maliciously scammed the plaintiff out of $47,000.
3. The defendant then proceeded to humiliate the plaintiff and cause severe emotional distress.


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Both the defendant and the plaintiff entered into an agreement in which the defendant would sell a Tier 1 Rank in exchange for $47,000. However, the defendant failed to uphold the agreement and kept the money without providing the rank. According to Section 7 of the Contracts Act, “A breach of contract occurs when a party fails to fulfil its contractual obligations.”

In this agreement, the following elements of a valid contract were present:

Offer: The defendant offered the Tier 1 Rank for $47,000.
Acceptance: Both parties agreed to the terms.
Consideration: The plaintiff paid $47,000.
Intent: Both parties intended to create a binding agreement.
Capacity: Both parties had the legal capacity to contract.

2. Punitive Damages are defined as “damages awarded against a person to punish them for their outrageous conduct and to deter them and others like them from similar conduct in the future, as a counter claim if a party believes the case to be frivolous and outrageous, or as authorized by law. These damages are distinct from 4 - Compensatory Damage as there does not need to be any actual loss to be compensated. A penalty clause in a contract would fall under this definition as well.”

Your Honor, the defendant’s actions were intentional and malicious. They acted outrageously and should be punished with punitive damages to hold them accountable and deter similar conduct in the future.

3. Emotional Damages are defined as “Situations in which a person suffers psychological harm due to an entity's negligent or intentional actions. Emotional damages may be proven by witness testimony, reasonable person tests, or any other mechanism the presiding Judge considers persuasive.”

Your Honor, how would you feel if someone scammed you out of $47,000 of your hard-earned money, which you worked hours for, and then proceeded to humiliate you and cause you emotional trauma after already being scammed?

4. Humiliation is defined as “Situations in which a person has been disgraced, belittled or made to look foolish. Humiliation damages may be proven by witness testimony and reasonable person tests, or any other mechanism the presiding Judge considers persuasive.”

The defendant scammed the plaintiff and then proceeded to laugh and emphasize how the plaintiff was so easily scammed, making the plaintiff look foolish. The defendant also literally claimed to be taunting the plaintiff.

5. The Loss of Enjoyment is defined as “situations in which an injured party loses their ability to engage in certain activities in the way that the injured party did before the harm. Loss of enjoyment in Redmont damages may be proven by witness testimony and reasonable person tests, or any other mechanism the presiding Judge considers persuasive.”

Your Honor, the plaintiff will no longer be able to engage with or view marketplace listings and offers for store ranks the same way they did before the harm the defendant brought upon them.

6. Legal Fees are defined as “most commonly used to describe the fees paid to the attorney for his/her time and effort.” and they are “capped at $5,000 or 30% of the overall case’s value whichever is higher.”


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
Punitive Damages - The plaintiff seeks $100,000 for the defendant’s outrageous actions and the malice with which the defendant carried out their malicious conduct. This is necessary to punish the defendant for their behavior and to deter them and others from engaging in similar conduct in the future.

Emotional Damages - The plaintiff seeks $100,000 for the severe emotional distress caused by the defendant’s actions. These damages are irreparable, and anyone in the plaintiff’s position would feel just as terrible. Therefore, the plaintiff seeks reasonable compensation.

Humiliation - The plaintiff seeks $50,000 for the severe humiliation caused by the defendant’s actions. The defendant compounded this by emphasizing how easy it was to scam the plaintiff, making them appear foolish in the process.

Loss of Enjoyment - The plaintiff seeks $50,000 for the loss of enjoyment caused by the defendant’s actions. The plaintiff will no longer be able to engage with marketplace listings or treat store item sellers the same way they did before the harm caused by the defendant.

Breach of Contract - The plaintiff seeks the return of $47,000 due to the defendant’s breach of contract, as the defendant failed to fulfill the terms of the agreement made with the plaintiff.

Legal Fees - The plaintiff seeks 30% of the case value to compensate for the legal fees incurred in handling this case.

As per Section 7 2(b) of the Legal Damages Act “Consequential damages shall have no cap if argued in conjunction with 5 - Punitive damages in cases involving “outrageous” conduct caused by the offending party.”


V: EVIDENCE

P-001.png
P-002.png
P-003.png
P-004.png
P-005.png
P-006.png
P-007.png

Representational Consent.png

2.png


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 7 day of February 2025

 

Writ of Summons


@zko0 is required to appear before the Federal Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont in the case of Krisztie v. zko0 [2025] FCR 13.

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.

 
zko0 said:
When is the Trial Meant to be? I want to laugh
Click to expand...
As you seem to be unaware of court procedure, I will be requiring you to retain a lawyer to represent you.

You have 48 hours to get a lawyer to appear on your behalf. Alternatively, you may request a Public Defender.
 
Your honor,

I have been assigned to this case as the public defender.
I would like to request 48 hours to produce an answer to the complaint, and so I may confer with the defendant.

Thank you.

Attached is proof of representation.
1739493108099.png
 
asexualdinosaur said:
Your honor,

I have been assigned to this case as the public defender.
I would like to request 48 hours to produce an answer to the complaint, and so I may confer with the defendant.

Thank you.

Attached is proof of representation.
View attachment 51856
Click to expand...
You have 48 hours to provide an Answer to Complaint.
 

Answer to Complaint


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

Krisztie
Plaintiff

v.

zko0
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

  1. The defence AFFIRMS this fact.
  2. The defence AFFIRMS this fact, but DENIES the scamming was malicious.
  3. The defence AFFIRMS this fact, but NEITHER CONFIRM NOR DENIES the severity of any emotional distress.

II. DEFENCES
  1. The plaintiff claims that the contract is a legally binding one, they have not shown that the defendant had capacity to form a contract.
  2. The defendant's low-playtime indicates that they may not have fully understood the depth of the agreement they were making, potentially putting themselves in harm’s way.
  3. The defendant was not aware they had formed a binding contract by listing a bid in the marketplace.
  4. The DoC should be restricting the creation of, and bidding of players under the Active Playtime set forth, and the defendant should not be held liable for this oversight by the department.
  5. The plaintiff should be verifying the capacity of players they plan to engage into contracts with, this oversight by the plaintiff should not affect the defendant.
  6. The plaintiff admits to bypassing DoC auction rules to engage in a ‘buyout’, engaging in an unsupported transaction to bypass the fair trade marketplace rules that are set in place.
  7. The defendant was informed by a seasoned player that the ‘best way to make money’ was by ‘scamming people’ leading to a fair assumption that it may not have been an illegal action to partake in, even if immoral.

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 15th day of February 2025

 

Objection


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

asexualdinosaur said:
The plaintiff admits to bypassing DoC auction rules to engage in a ‘buyout’, engaging in an unsupported transaction to bypass the fair trade marketplace rules that are set in place.
Click to expand...

Your Honor, this statement is completely false.

Firstly, the plaintiff never admitted to "bypassing DoC auction rules to engage in a buyout." The defendant was advertising the sale of a Tier 1 Supporter rank in global chat on February 6th at 02:10 CET. The plaintiff then reached out to inquire about the price, as shown in Proof 1. The auction was created at 11:41 CET (9 hours and 31 minutes after the advertisement), where the defendant explicitly stated that they were "willing to sell multiple for the right price," as evidenced in Proof 2.

Secondly, we can later see that the defendant reached out to the plaintiff and asked how much they would be willing to pay for the Tier 1 Rank, as shown in P-002. Let me clarify that at that time, the plaintiff was not leading the "auction". Additionally, let me remind the court that the defendant stated they were willing to sell multiple Tier 1 Ranks for the right price. The defendant then offered to sell the Tier 1 Rank to the plaintiff for $47,000 and stated they would provide the rank immediately upon payment.

The plaintiff was not attempting to "buy out" the marketplace listing but was simply accepting the defendant’s offer for one Tier 1 Rank, as the defendant had expressed willingness to sell multiple.

The defendant's council failed to do their research and made a false statement, thereby committing perjury.

proof.jpg
time.png

timezone.png


 
Freeze_Line said:

Objection


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


Your Honor, this statement is completely false.

Firstly, the plaintiff never admitted to "bypassing DoC auction rules to engage in a buyout." The defendant was advertising the sale of a Tier 1 Supporter rank in global chat on February 6th at 02:10 CET. The plaintiff then reached out to inquire about the price, as shown in Proof 1. The auction was created at 11:41 CET (9 hours and 31 minutes after the advertisement), where the defendant explicitly stated that they were "willing to sell multiple for the right price," as evidenced in Proof 2.

Secondly, we can later see that the defendant reached out to the plaintiff and asked how much they would be willing to pay for the Tier 1 Rank, as shown in P-002. Let me clarify that at that time, the plaintiff was not leading the "auction". Additionally, let me remind the court that the defendant stated they were willing to sell multiple Tier 1 Ranks for the right price. The defendant then offered to sell the Tier 1 Rank to the plaintiff for $47,000 and stated they would provide the rank immediately upon payment.

The plaintiff was not attempting to "buy out" the marketplace listing but was simply accepting the defendant’s offer for one Tier 1 Rank, as the defendant had expressed willingness to sell multiple.

The defendant's council failed to do their research and made a false statement, thereby committing perjury.

View attachment 51910
View attachment 51911

View attachment 51912


Click to expand...
 Overruled, the Defense would have no way of knowing what time the in-game messages were sent at.
 
Your Honor, may we proceed with discovery?
 
The plaintiff submits the following evidence:

1.png
2.png
3.png
4.png
5.png
6.jpg
7.png
8.png
9.png
10.png
11.png
12.png
 
The defense submits the following:

Noting that these timestamps are Central Standard Time (CST)

The defense also wishes to call Zko0 as a witness.

1740074741597.png
1740074761544.png
1740074796110.png
Votted.png
1740076402666.png
 

Attachments

  • 1740075455605.png
    1740075455605.png
    29.8 KB · Views: 29
  • 1740075443298.png
    1740075443298.png
    98.9 KB · Views: 26
The plaintiff wishes to call krisztie as a witness
 
I apologize for the delay. I've been sick IRL.
 
Discovery is well beyond over. The Plaintiff has 72 hours to file an Opening Statement.
 

Opening Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Good afternoon, Your Honor, and opposing counsel.

We’re here today because of the defendant’s deliberate and malicious actions against the plaintiff. But this case is about more than just losing money. It’s about deception, humiliation, and the betrayal of trust. The defendant didn’t just take the plaintiff’s money, they intentionally tricked and mocked them for their own amusement, leaving the plaintiff not only financially drained but also emotionally crushed.

On February 6th, the defendant offered a valid agreement, offering to sell the plaintiff a Tier 1 Rank for $47,000. Both parties agreed to the terms, and the plaintiff, acting in good faith, proceeded with the transaction. However, once the money was transferred, the defendant had no intention of honoring their end of the deal. Instead of delivering what was promised, they immediately turned around and ridiculed the plaintiff, openly bragging about how easily they had taken the money and reveling in the humiliation they caused. This wasn’t a misunderstanding, it was calculated fraud and cruelty.

The plaintiff worked hard for their money, only to have it stolen in a matter of minutes by someone who had zero regard for honesty or fairness. The defendant’s actions weren’t just illegal, they were outright disgraceful. This case isn’t just about proving someone did something wrong. It’s about making sure people like the defendant can’t get away with scamming and humiliating others. If we let this slide, we’re basically saying that fraud and deception are okay. They’re not.

But this isn’t just about one scam. The defendant’s behavior shows a clear pattern, a willingness to lie, manipulate, and exploit others for their own gain. They had two clear goals: scam the plaintiff and humiliate them. The evidence we have presented makes their intent crystal clear. This wasn’t a one time thing. If they aren’t held accountable now, they’ll do it again, and next time, someone else will be the victim.

The harm done to the plaintiff goes beyond just losing money. The emotional damage of this scam is something they can’t just shake off. The defendant didn’t just take their money; they shattered their trust and sense of security. We live where fairness and honesty should matter. People should be able to make deals without constantly fearing they’ll be scammed. However, the defendant undermined that basic trust. If we don’t put a stop to this, scammers will keep taking advantage of good, hardworking people.

And let’s not forget, the defendant had all the power here. They controlled the entire deal from start to finish. They were the ones who made the offer, set the terms, took the money first, and then walked away with it. There was no collateral, no safety net for the plaintiff, just an agreement that the defendant immediately broke for their own benefit. The plaintiff, someone who played fair and worked hard, is now left with nothing while the defendant laughs at their expense. That’s not just wrong, it’s disgusting.

Justice needs to be served. If we let the defendant walk away without consequences, we’re sending a dangerous message, that fraud, manipulation, and scamming are just part of the game. But they’re not. We need to set the right precedent, not just for the plaintiff, but for everyone who believes in fairness, honesty, and accountability. The defendant needs to answer for what they’ve done so that no one else has to go through the same thing.

Thank you.

 
The Defense has 72 hours to provide their Opening Statement
 
The Defense has not provided an Opening Statement.

I hereby charge the Public Defender Program with Contempt of Court. I order a $2500 fine.

I will still allow an Opening Statement to be filed within the next 24 hours.
 
Good Afternoon, Your Honor,

I have been reassigned to this case within the Public Defender program. I would like to request a small extension while I process the information in this case.

I seek a small 24-hour extension so I can work to provide a proper defense for the defendant.
 
Your Honor, we’re already past your second deadline. My client has a right to a speedy trial, so the plaintiff requests that we continue. The public defender’s office has already had plenty of time to reassign their attorney, and the plaintiff should not have their rights violated because the public defender’s office cannot do its job properly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Freeze_Line said:
Your Honor, we’re already past your second deadline. My client has a right to a speedy trial, so the plaintiff requests that we continue. The public defender’s office has already had plenty of time to reassign their attorney, and the plaintiff should not have their rights violated because the public defender’s office cannot do its job properly.
Click to expand...

Objection


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

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff council has spoken out of turn and was not given this direction by the court. We requested the bench. We request that the court strike this out-of-turn comment and sanction the plaintiff’s council for doing so. The plaintiff’s counsel is a tenured member of the legal community and should know when to speak and when not to speak.

 

Opening Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Good Evening, Your Honor,

Throughout this case, you will hear a case that the plaintiff has painted as an egregious act of fraud and humiliation, but the reality is far more complex. The plaintiff would have you believe that my client, zko0, engaged in a deliberate act of deceit, maliciously robbing the plaintiff of their money while reveling in their distress. However, upon closer examination of the facts and evidence, it becomes clear that this case is not one of fraud but rather a misunderstanding of the circumstances surrounding the transaction before the court.

The plaintiff claims that my client agreed with no intention of upholding it. However, where is the proof of intent? The foundation of a fraud claim requires more than just a failed transaction—it requires clear and convincing evidence that my client deliberately set out to deceive and harm the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s argument hinges on chat messages taken out of context and assumptions about my client’s mindset rather than tangible proof of a legally binding contract with enforceable terms. These messages jump between Discord and in-game messages and a sanctioned DOC auction to a private transaction over in-game messages.

Moreover, the plaintiff fails to acknowledge the inherent risks of private, peer-to-peer transactions. The plaintiff engaged in this deal willingly, without any formal safeguards or contractual protections. If this was a legitimate business arrangement, why was no formalized contract outlining specific terms, conditions, and delivery assurances? We also ask why the plaintiff engaged in a high-stakes interaction with an individual with such low playtime. ThePlaintifff took a risk, and while we sympathize with their disappointment, it does not amount to fraud, it amounts to incompetence on the plaintiffs part.

Additionally, the plaintiff seeks to portray my client as a serial scammer, yet the evidence demonstrates no pattern of conduct. One alleged incident does not equate to a history of deceit. The plaintiff has failed to present evidence that my client has engaged in repeated or systematic fraud. Without such a pattern, their argument is based on conjecture and exaggerated claims, not legal merit.

At the heart of this case, we must consider accountability. The plaintiff entered an informal, high-risk transaction and now wishes to shift the responsibility for their decisions onto my client. While we understand their frustration, the law does not exist to compensate for regret. To rule in favor of the plaintiff would set a dangerous precedent that allows individuals to ignore personal responsibility in voluntary dealings.

My client is not a criminal, and the law must be applied fairly. Thank you.

 
Nacho said:

Objection


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

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff council has spoken out of turn and was not given this direction by the court. We requested the bench. We request that the court strike this out-of-turn comment and sanction the plaintiff’s council for doing so. The plaintiff’s counsel is a tenured member of the legal community and should know when to speak and when not to speak.

Click to expand...
Sustained, @Freeze_Line please use Motions or Objections for such matters.
 
Nacho said:
Good Afternoon, Your Honor,

I have been reassigned to this case within the Public Defender program. I would like to request a small extension while I process the information in this case.

I seek a small 24-hour extension so I can work to provide a proper defense for the defendant.
Click to expand...
I'm not happy with the delay, but given the change in counsel it would be uncouth to disallow it.
 
I will issue summons for witnesses shortly.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WITNESS SUMMONS

@zko0 and @Krisztie are required to appear before the Federal Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont as witnesses. Failure to announce your presence within 48 hours will result in a Contempt of Court charge.

Once both witnesses announce their presence, the Plaintiff will have 24 hours to present any questions they have for Krisztie.

All questions should be provided in a single post, unless absolutely necessary to separate them as follow-up questions. Inform me when the first questions are posted if there will be follow-up questions.
 
Since Dartanboy resigned, may we get another judge to continue this case? My client has the right to a speedy trial.
 
Can we get a judge here asap? My client still has a right to a speedy trial.
 
Greetings. I will be taking over as presiding officer, pending the appointment of a new Federal Court Judge to replace Frmr. Judge Dartanboy.


Dartanboy said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WITNESS SUMMONS

@zko0 and @Krisztie are required to appear before the Federal Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont as witnesses. Failure to announce your presence within 48 hours will result in a Contempt of Court charge.

Once both witnesses announce their presence, the Plaintiff will have 24 hours to present any questions they have for Krisztie.

All questions should be provided in a single post, unless absolutely necessary to separate them as follow-up questions. Inform me when the first questions are posted if there will be follow-up questions.
Click to expand...
In accordance with the summons issued ~10 days ago, @zko0 is held in Contempt of Court for failing to respond to Court Summons.

The Plaintiff now has 24 hours to post any questions they have for the witnesses present. Please follow the rules and guidelines previously established by Frmr. Judge Dartanboy and the Court Rules and Procedures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top