Lawsuit: In Session ZxRiptide, Co-Plaintiff Pepecuu, and Co-Plaintiff Jakkuwu v. MasterCaelen and Co-Defendant MJL [2026] FCR 21

Your honour,

I have retrieved a motherboard capable of supporting video and as such my computer has been cured of perpetual 1-day-blindness and I am able to take up position as counsel reliably once again.

Dartanboy said:
docs.google.com

Fraud in the Federal Court

Fraud in the Federal Court On April 3rd, Pepecuu filed a lawsuit against MasterCaelen, a player who joined on February 15th this year. However, the former president is allegedly committing fraud in the federal court. Editor’s Note: This is a very long article, and if you don’t need to know ...
docs.google.com docs.google.com
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE

Many apologies your honour, had my computer not been afflicted I would’ve been able to address this properly sooner, I make this submission acknowledging that discovery has been declared over- I however hope your honour will see the merit in the objection and take under consideration the circumstances counsel was placed in.


Submission D-C005 should be split up, in previous cases in the FCR and DCR this same objection has been levied towards evidence that has been ‘collaged’ together as one ‘evidence’.

Lawsuit: Dismissed - Vanguard & Co v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 49 - ‘Sustained, please split up the collage so each component can be address individually throughout this case. ‘

Lawsuit: Dismissed - lucaaasserole v. Department of Public Affairs [2025] FCR 85 - ‘Sustained. Plaintiff must split these exhibits so each image can be address individually.’

Lawsuit: Dismissed - NovaKerbal v. Town of Oakridge [2026] DCR 6 - ‘As declared in [2025] FCR 49, evidence should be split up instead of collaged so they can be addressed individually throughout the case.‘

All of which are in reference to or cite directly Court Rules and Procedures Rule 4.1 - ‘The scope and purpose of Discovery is to allow all material to enter the court prior to the beginning of arguments for the sake of fairness. It is to enable fairness by allowing the parties to view the information so that they may properly formulate their legal arguments. Presiding judges shall be guided by this principle.‘


I believe this particular submission to offend not only this metric, but that it contains largely opinionated language in reference to this case, as well that the contents of the link itself are maintained by a third-party and are potentially subject to edits - of which without a public and available history your honour this evidence is precarious at best.

 
asexualdinosaur said:
Your honour,

I have retrieved a motherboard capable of supporting video and as such my computer has been cured of perpetual 1-day-blindness and I am able to take up position as counsel reliably once again.



Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE

Many apologies your honour, had my computer not been afflicted I would’ve been able to address this properly sooner, I make this submission acknowledging that discovery has been declared over- I however hope your honour will see the merit in the objection and take under consideration the circumstances counsel was placed in.


Submission D-C005 should be split up, in previous cases in the FCR and DCR this same objection has been levied towards evidence that has been ‘collaged’ together as one ‘evidence’.

Lawsuit: Dismissed - Vanguard & Co v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 49 - ‘Sustained, please split up the collage so each component can be address individually throughout this case. ‘

Lawsuit: Dismissed - lucaaasserole v. Department of Public Affairs [2025] FCR 85 - ‘Sustained. Plaintiff must split these exhibits so each image can be address individually.’

Lawsuit: Dismissed - NovaKerbal v. Town of Oakridge [2026] DCR 6 - ‘As declared in [2025] FCR 49, evidence should be split up instead of collaged so they can be addressed individually throughout the case.‘

All of which are in reference to or cite directly Court Rules and Procedures Rule 4.1 - ‘The scope and purpose of Discovery is to allow all material to enter the court prior to the beginning of arguments for the sake of fairness. It is to enable fairness by allowing the parties to view the information so that they may properly formulate their legal arguments. Presiding judges shall be guided by this principle.‘


I believe this particular submission to offend not only this metric, but that it contains largely opinionated language in reference to this case, as well that the contents of the link itself are maintained by a third-party and are potentially subject to edits - of which without a public and available history your honour this evidence is precarious at best.

Click to expand...
Your honor,

Discovery is already over,  and the News Article is itself one entire piece of evidence.

This objection should be overruled.
 
asexualdinosaur said:
Your honour,

I have retrieved a motherboard capable of supporting video and as such my computer has been cured of perpetual 1-day-blindness and I am able to take up position as counsel reliably once again.



Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE

Many apologies your honour, had my computer not been afflicted I would’ve been able to address this properly sooner, I make this submission acknowledging that discovery has been declared over- I however hope your honour will see the merit in the objection and take under consideration the circumstances counsel was placed in.


Submission D-C005 should be split up, in previous cases in the FCR and DCR this same objection has been levied towards evidence that has been ‘collaged’ together as one ‘evidence’.

Lawsuit: Dismissed - Vanguard & Co v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 49 - ‘Sustained, please split up the collage so each component can be address individually throughout this case. ‘

Lawsuit: Dismissed - lucaaasserole v. Department of Public Affairs [2025] FCR 85 - ‘Sustained. Plaintiff must split these exhibits so each image can be address individually.’

Lawsuit: Dismissed - NovaKerbal v. Town of Oakridge [2026] DCR 6 - ‘As declared in [2025] FCR 49, evidence should be split up instead of collaged so they can be addressed individually throughout the case.‘

All of which are in reference to or cite directly Court Rules and Procedures Rule 4.1 - ‘The scope and purpose of Discovery is to allow all material to enter the court prior to the beginning of arguments for the sake of fairness. It is to enable fairness by allowing the parties to view the information so that they may properly formulate their legal arguments. Presiding judges shall be guided by this principle.‘


I believe this particular submission to offend not only this metric, but that it contains largely opinionated language in reference to this case, as well that the contents of the link itself are maintained by a third-party and are potentially subject to edits - of which without a public and available history your honour this evidence is precarious at best.

Click to expand...

Court Order


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER — OBJECTION FOR IMPROPER EVIDENCE (Post No. 101)

The objection is immensely untimely. Our standard response times under Rule 6.6 would have given 24 hours to provide an objection. The material objected to was submitted on April 27 at 1:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time. The objection was filed on May 4 at 7:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time. This is approximately 174 hours after the evidence was submitted. Even if we were to stretch RoFC 4.4 (“[a] party may respond to any motion, brief, or other legal filing within forty-eight (48) hours”) beyond its text to objections, we still would be well outside the window to object.

Moreover, discovery began on April 21 and was extended to end on April 29. A timely filed objection would have permitted time for the Defendant to re-submit evidence in discovery pending a final ruling on the objection.

Because the Co-Plaintiff’s delay in objecting caused the objection to be filed at a time where the Defendant could no longer submit new evidence, striking this evidence after such a delay would prejudice this case. This basis alone may be sufficient to overrule the objection.

Nevertheless, the Court examines substantial questions posed by the objection. The Court finds that the objection distills into three such questions: (1) whether the contents of the article require representation in separate exhibits; (2) whether the textual contents of the article are permissible given their opinionated nature; and (3) whether the Court may allow the news article given the location of the file on a third-party site that may subject the article to change.

As to the question of image presentation, the Defendant has presented this Court with a complete news article, not merely a collage of screenshots selected by the Defendant. The Court does not find the prior cited rulings of the Federal Court to horizontally bind this Court, nor does this Court find the application to this question to be apt or persuasive: we have a full and complete document, this Court sees no need to order it be chopped up into multiple exhibits.

As to the question of the content of the article, the Court will not assume as fact the textual content of a player-generated news article submitted as evidence without corroborating testimony. This is in line with how the District Court has outlined the handling of prior public statements in its Order in emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24, Post No. 65. The Federal Court fully incorporates the reasoning in that Order in its own right and extends it here.

As to the question of the location of the file, the objection has some merit. Under Rule 4.6, “Images must be uploaded DIRECTLY TO THE FORUMS to be submitted as evidence”. This draws from the principle that our court filing must not be easily changed without the Court being able to know; evidence must be submitted in a way that reflects this principle.

The Objection is this overruled in-part and sustained in-part. To remedy the substantial merit and the procedural issue of timing unfairness, the Court uses its constitutional judicial power (see: Const. 13) to apply balance of equities.

The Court requires immutability while not prejudicing the defendant (and co-defendant) for the co-Plaintiff’s extreme tardiness. The Court thus orders that the Clerk (or, in the Clerk’s absence, a judicial officer) download the article as an PDF and attach it to the Defense’s post originally containing the link in question. This creates an immutable record in court, resolving the substantial concern about editing of the article during or after the witness questioning. It also addresses the procedural fairness concern by allowing the material to remain usable to all parties who may have planned to rely upon it.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

 
Your honor, I have to come to a settlement with the lead plaintiff, ZxRiptide, regarding plot c006.

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

The co-defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed in part and respectfully puts forward:

1. No party outside the lead plaintiff, ZxRiptide, has demonstrated a specific claim towards c006.

2. The parties (MJL and ZxRiptide) have settled outside of Court in an informal settlement agreement. ("D-L0S1")

3. This court can safely award MJL the plot c006 without prejudicing any other part of this case or controversy.

Screenshot_20260507_124600_Discord.jpg

 
MJL said:
Your honor, I have to come to a settlement with the lead plaintiff, ZxRiptide, regarding plot c006.

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

The co-defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed in part and respectfully puts forward:

1. No party outside the lead plaintiff, ZxRiptide, has demonstrated a specific claim towards c006.

2. The parties (MJL and ZxRiptide) have settled outside of Court in an informal settlement agreement. ("D-L0S1")

3. This court can safely award MJL the plot c006 without prejudicing any other part of this case or controversy.

View attachment 81764

Click to expand...
Plaintiff agrees to this settlement.
 
MJL said:
Your honor, I have to come to a settlement with the lead plaintiff, ZxRiptide, regarding plot c006.

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

The co-defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed in part and respectfully puts forward:

1. No party outside the lead plaintiff, ZxRiptide, has demonstrated a specific claim towards c006.

2. The parties (MJL and ZxRiptide) have settled outside of Court in an informal settlement agreement. ("D-L0S1")

3. This court can safely award MJL the plot c006 without prejudicing any other part of this case or controversy.

View attachment 81764

Click to expand...
Denied. You still need to actually demonstrate to the Court that it is you, rather than MasterCaelen, who is entitled to that property. This question of law has not been resolved and cannot be resolved without the input of the Guardian ad Litem who is as a creature of procedure assigned to defend MasterCaelen’s interests (that is, Public Defender Director @Dartanboy ).
 
Franciscus said:
With 72 hours having passed since the Court Clerk’s message, and having resolved pending discovery items, we will move to opening statements.

In line with the Trial Protocol and Rules previously given, all parties shall submit opening statements simultaneously.

All parties (cc: @asexualdinosaur, @Johnes, @dodrio3, @Dartanboy, and @MJL) have 72 hours to present their opening statement.
Click to expand...
Reminder that (unless you have been granted an extension), all parties’ opening statements are due at 11:10 AM tomorrow morning, Eastern Daylight Time.
 
Franciscus said:
Reminder that (unless you have been granted an extension), all parties’ opening statements are due at 11:10 AM tomorrow morning, Eastern Daylight Time.
Click to expand...

Your honour, I am busy with exams at the moment and would like to request a 48-hour extension
 
dodrio3 said:
Your honour, I am busy with exams at the moment and would like to request a 48-hour extension
Click to expand...
On second thought, I am just going to give all parties the same 72-hour extension.

Opening statements due 2026-05-12 at 11:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time.
 

Opening Statement



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

This is a simple case of contract law; it can be seen in P-J101 that a loan contract was clearly entered into by two consenting parties. It can also be shown that there is a good reason why Master Caldeen would need to take a loan, as shown in P-J107. While some parties are believed to have fraudulent intent, it can be shown clearly without a doubt that there is reason to take out an agreement and valid proof for that agreement.

It can also be shown that the plaintiff attempted to contact the defendant regarding the payment due in P-J103, indicating an effort to reduce harm to the co-plaintiff and fulfil the duty to mitigate.

 

Opening Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Hello! If it may please the court, I present my humble opening statement.

I. INTRODUCTION
My name is MJL, and I am the lawful owner of plot c006. Unlike the other parties in this case, I am not contesting ownership of more than a single property. As testimony will show, no other party on the plaintiff side recognizes any specific claim to ownership towards this property. This plot is mine and mine alone.

II. INTENT TO TRANFER
Exhibit D-L02 is a discussion between myself and the primary defendant of this case, MasterCaelen ("Caelen"). It shows Caelen's intention to grant me ownership of the property c006 as evidenced by his statement "Alright you have it now". The clear and obvious intent of MasterCaelen was to transfer the property in right and deed to myself.

III. NO CONTEST
While I could have burdened this court with exhibit after exhibit demonstrating my active use and maintenance of Plot c006, I felt it was unnecessary. Following Exhibit D-L0S1, no plaintiff even disputes my ownership of this plot. Witness testimony will show a general agreement in the matters I have asserted here. Sadly, Caelen is not available to these confirm facts today; but, absent any argument presented by the Defense, I do not see a reason to grant the plot to anyone besides myself. With no reason given, no plot should be taken.

IV. MATTER OF LAW
The Constitution of Redmon provides that "Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure." [Constitution. Part V. Section 35, Subdivision (15)].

My argument is a simple one, it would be unreasonable for my property to be seized for any contract I was not party to, by this government as part of a sanction against another, or for any other reason besides my own conduct. I have harmed no one here, and I have broke no server rules. If this is the case, why should I be punished for Caelen's mistakes?

Just as in the case of Superwoops v. Trentrick_Lamar [2026] DCR 18, I find myself unable to complete a transfer of property due to the untimely deportation of a player. For this fact alone, I must beg relief of this court to acknowledge my ownership of c006.

IV. CONCLUSION
Finally, I am a victim of circumstance. I was murdered by Caelen and given a property. If this had been another player, I would not be here today. However, unknown to me, Caelen seemingly had multiple business contracts with conflicting collaterals attached, and he failed to notify any of the parties that I was given this plot. Had I been aware of this, I would have encouraged Caelen to do the right thing and settle his accounts. I could not have known that by accepting Plot c006, I would unwittingly find myself a part of the most sizeable legal cases of my generation.

I thank this court for its time and hope to continue advocating for my own small interest in this complex case.

 
Dartanboy said:
Your honor,

Due to something coming at work (IRL) yesterday, I had to stay late.

I'm working on the Opening Statement now; I hope you would be lenient if I am not exactly on time.

Thank you.
Click to expand...
I don’t expect to be home until after 7:00 PM Eastern time. If it’s in by then, should be A-OK, as it won’t really delay anything.
 

Opening Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

I - INTRODUCTION
My client has been the target of fraudulent claims and claims without sufficient evidence. The court must see through the claims and look at the facts and the law.

II - ON LEGAL CONTRACTS
A legally recognized contract requires the following, according to the Contracts Act:

(a) Offer. An offer is a clear and unequivocal communication expressing a party's willingness to enter into a contract, either explicitly stated or reasonably inferred from the circumstances.
(b) Acceptance. Acceptance is the positive and unambiguous response to an offer communicated to the offeror, mirroring the terms of the offer and conveyed through various means.
(c) Consideration. Consideration, an essential element, involves the exchange of something of value between parties, with sufficiency though not necessarily adequacy. Consideration can be tangible or intanglbie.
(d) Intent. Parties must demonstrate a clear intention to create legal obligations for the contract to be valid.
(e) Capacity. Parties entering into a contract must possess the legal capacity to do so. Players with low playtime may lack the capacity to fairly enter a contract.
Click to expand...

III - ZxRiptide's Claims
The contract that was allegedly signed by the Defendant does not appear to exist.

Between the Amicus Curiae Brief of SoggehToast and the Exhibit D-C001, it is clear that either the contract is a forgery or it never existed at all.

In either situation, there is no evidence showing that the contract shown in Exhibit P-Z001 is actually the one signed in Exhibit P-Z005.

IV - Pepeccu's Claims
There is an abundance of evidence showing that Pepeccu's claims are entirely fabricated, including fake screenshots, an edited contract, and complete lies regarding plot ownership timelines.

Any one of these would be a valid reason to rule in favor of the Defendant, but all three of them are present.

V - Jakkuwu's Claims
Jakkuwu's claim is the only one that seems more like a misunderstanding than an outright lie. Nonetheless, the Defendant is not liable in this case either.

We do not believe Jakkuwu has faked any evidence, and find that the primary disagreement is whether a legal contract was formed or not.

The Defendant argues that "kk gimme money" is not a "positive and unambiguous response to an offer communicated to the offeror, mirroring the terms of the offer" as required by the Contracts Act.

VI - C006
There is no legal mechanism requiring MasterCaelen to convey a plot to MJL, even if it was Promised to them (however, the Defense argues it was not). Absent a Consideration, there was no legal contract.

The court should uphold the status quo, and as shown in P-Z003, MasterCaelen is the current owner of C006.

 

Opening Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor,
we will prove that Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a consultancy agreement where Defendant posted collateral, and after Defendant's deportation, lost the right to it.

The agreement included a provision for Defendant to post collateral to protect Plaintiff's interest, which Defendant posted. Said provision contained several requirements for Plaintiff to claim ownership of the collateral. One of them was deportation for a period longer than the payment period.

Because Defendant is deported for a period longer than the payment period, Plaintiff has a right to claim ownership of the collateral in its entirety.

Defendant also agreed to this agreement in more ways than one and expressed willingness to uphold it, therefore it's a simple case, with the course of action already predetermined in the agreement.

 

Opening Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT (ON BEHALF OF Plaintiff Pepecuu)

Your honour, Defence, Other Defence, Plaintiff-Z, Plaintiff-J, Onlookers,

In the beginning, there was an agreement.

P-P003 indicates that there was an agreement between Defendant and Plaintiff. The plaintiff states ‘Please take a look at the mortgage agreement and let me know if there are any issues.’, ‘If its all good, I would need you to agree to it by replying with “I, (username), agree to the terms of the mortgage agreement.” Thanks!’; Defendant responds in the affirmative, echoing ‘mortgage agreement’; Plaintiff indicates they will send the funds; Defendant affirms [3/3/2026 4:46 PM]; P-P004 shows Plaintiff sent funds to Defendant to the sum of $1,700,000 [3/3/2026 7:22 PM]

It is clear that there was some sort of agreement that both Plaintiff and Defendant recognized as a mortgage agreement. A mortgage agreement is a standard type of loan contract that fulfills the need of the loan, and often holds the property under purchase in collateral. So a mortgage agreement would generally be considered a secured loan contract where the loan is secured with plots. As the given amount for this loan was $1,700,000 it would not be uncommon to secure the loan with collateral.

This sort of agreement happens commonly in Redmont, and on occasion has had to be effectuated through our courts. FCR 51 [2024], here Discover uses a collateral clause for future property. DCR 25 [2025], Volt holds C594 as collateral for a loan. These sorts of agreements align with the agreement displayed in P-P003 & P-P004 and further they align with the contents of P-P001.

Contracts Act § 4.1 (‘A contract is a legally binding agreement between two or more parties that creates an obligation to do or not do a particular thing.‘) We would suggest that a mortgage agreement; as a secured loan contract, qualifies an obligation to pay back at minimum the original sum.

id. § 5.2 (‘Implied terms may be derived from law, custom, or the conduct of the parties.’) We suggest that by nature of custom of a mortgage agreement, there are implied terms stemming from P-P003 & P-P004 that suggest there would be plots held in collateral by virtue of being a mortgage agreement.

id. § 4.2 (‘A valid contract is formed when the following legal test is met’)
Offer
P-P003 shows that there was an offer from Plaintiff to enter a mortgage agreement with Defendant.
Acceptance
Defendant affirms in the format that the Plaintiff provides conveying that it’s a mortgage agreement.
Consideration
As the Plaintiff was offering a secured loan it would not be unreasonable to suggest that there was monetary interest involved in such a loan, as we allege. Under P-P003 it would not be unreasonable to suggest that without the contents of P-P001 that the potential return on collateral could be consideration here.
Intent
Both parties demonstrate a clear intent to enter into this agreement.
Capacity
Both parties had the capacity to enter into a contract at this point in time.

Addressing the defences

1) Defendant affirms that there was an agreement, just not as to the specifics of that agreement. We would suggest that it’s likely this was the contract in place in a balance of probabilities, in consideration of the type of agreement that it was that the contract listed in P-P001 is the agreement in place.

3) This is actually not so mysterious, #server-announcements in DC, this date was the implementation of the new realty plugin, and much like horses, plots were given the same ‘birth’ date. Our introduction of this evidence was not to imply the property was transferred on this date, only to show that by this date it was not in possession of the Defendant.

4) We contest that a mortgage agreement could not have collateral that would or could be acquired later, as the nature of a mortgage agreement often suggests this.

5) The (edited) label alone does not suffice to disregard the content of the message and as other parts of the message echo the contents of the original message, it’s highly unlikely that the content of the message was edited in any meaningful way. Defendant echo’d the affirmation in the message, suggesting that at the least, the original message contained this content- and Defendant did agree to a ‘mortgage agreement’

6) The images provenance are highly suspect, they’re listed as anonymous but there’s only two parties that would have access to these DMs and one of them is a deported individual. It would be particularly odd for Plaintiff to distribute an alternate set of DMs, and we hold that these images should not be considered as legitimate.

If we accept that these images are not doctored and that Defendant did provide them, then we must also address that this court would effectively be enabling the Defendant to represent themselves and provide evidence by going through a third-party to publish would-be evidence. This is rather similar to Parallel construction, but instead of law enforcement- the defendant launders their evidence through a news source in situations in which a deported person's legal representation would better be able to represent their interests, where otherwise they would be unable. In addition, the evidence of which this Defendant would provide would be unimpeachable by testimony, as the witness would not be summonable.

In summary

We will display that Defendant failed to follow through on their end of the contract. Even if your honour would throw out P-P001, we believe there is merit alone to a contractual obligation created from P-P003 and P-P004 as such to provide Plaintiff with their original sum at minimum. Beyond this, we believe that the general nature of a mortgage contract and in consideration for the size of the loan itself- begs the conclusion that P-P001 is a compelling contract that was agreed upon.

We make no assertions that Plaintiff had acted in good faith in regards to their contracts- We even allege damage of double-mortgaging with other plaintiffs, which we would consider to have been done in bad faith. Plaintiff initially believed the contract was made under good faith dealings, reasonably as this is a covenant written into all contracts.

Through testimony, statute, and precedent it will be made clear that Plaintiff is entitled a favorable ruling.

 

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE (ON BEHALF OF MJL_)

The co-defence moves that part of the opening statement made by defense be stricken from the record. Specifically the following statement should be stricken from the record: "The court should uphold the status quo, and as shown in P-Z003, MasterCaelen is the current owner of C006."

1. P-Z003 is not a list of properties MasterCaelen owns. It is a list of regions he listed by the realty plugin as having been the most recent purchaser of. This is not the same thing, and defense is conflating the two things to confuse the court. This gives an improper understanding of what the "status quo" is.

2. For the benefit of the court, I am attaching two new exhibits to this motion. This allowed per the Official Guide to Motions, Motion Type: Strike, "Evidence submitted with this motion must be relevant and is at the discretion of the Presiding Officer."

3. As can be seen in Exhibit D-L401, I am added to c006. While it lists MasterCaelen as having "bought" the property, it does not make any claims of ownership. With MasterCaelen being deported, I am the only player able to build on this property. For all intents and purposes, it can be considered my property despite also appearing on the list presented in P-Z003. I do not deny that MasterCaelen bought the property, but I obviously do not believe he can be said to still own it.

4. The argument presented is further bolstered by the rental regions within c006. For example, lemon-apartment-2 is one of those regions and is presented in Exhibit D-L402. As can plainly be seen, I am listed as the landlord for that region rather than MasterCaelen. Any revenues collected in this rental region are sent to me rather than him.

5. Therefore, the "status quo" is not as simple as has been insinuated by Defendant's counsel. To claim that the present facts are MasterCaelen simply owns it is wildly misleading and prejudicial to realty.

6. Lastly, because I understand the submission of evidence alongside this motion may be a bit controversial, I would like to clarify that the Defense has not once contested my claims of ownership until this opening statement. I had no reason to believe that my current ownership was in doubt because in your court order enjoining me to this case (#34), the Defendant was entitled to file cross-claims regarding c006 but never choose to do so.

1778596486451.png
1778596358124.png

 
We have received opening statements from each of the 5 parties.

I will issue a summons to the following witnesses when I get home on behalf of the following parties:
  1. Plaintiff ZxRiptide:
    1. None
  2. Co-Plaintiff Jakkuwu:
    1. Jakkuwu
  3. Co-Plaintiff Pepecuu:
    1. None
  4. Defendant MasterCaelen:
    1. PurgePlanet
    2. ToadKing
  5. Co-Defendant MJL:
    1. Jakkuwu
    2. Pepecuu
If there is anyone missing, please alert me to it so that I can include them in the summons (or at least summon them before witness questioning is otherwise set to begin).
 
Mister Your Honor, my lawyer has been quite unresponsive to me the past two days, and since I don't know the state of when he will reply. I want to say that I would also like to have vxMac included as a witness in my case.
 
Jakku said:
Mister Your Honor, my lawyer has been quite unresponsive to me the past two days, and since I don't know the state of when he will reply. I want to say that I would also like to have vxMac included as a witness in my case.
Click to expand...
Hello,

In line with Rule 4.9 (Witness Protocol), witnesses may only be submitted at "any time before the end of discovery". Discovery ended last month (see: Post No. 89).

I'm unfortunately not seeing a post where any of your counsels (whether it be Dodrio3, who posted an opening statement on your behalf yesterday; JuliaMC_; or dearev) had asked to include vxMac as a witness. For this reason, I can't add vxMac to the witness list at this time.
 
MJL said:

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE (ON BEHALF OF MJL_)

The co-defence moves that part of the opening statement made by defense be stricken from the record. Specifically the following statement should be stricken from the record: "The court should uphold the status quo, and as shown in P-Z003, MasterCaelen is the current owner of C006."

1. P-Z003 is not a list of properties MasterCaelen owns. It is a list of regions he listed by the realty plugin as having been the most recent purchaser of. This is not the same thing, and defense is conflating the two things to confuse the court. This gives an improper understanding of what the "status quo" is.

2. For the benefit of the court, I am attaching two new exhibits to this motion. This allowed per the Official Guide to Motions, Motion Type: Strike, "Evidence submitted with this motion must be relevant and is at the discretion of the Presiding Officer."

3. As can be seen in Exhibit D-L401, I am added to c006. While it lists MasterCaelen as having "bought" the property, it does not make any claims of ownership. With MasterCaelen being deported, I am the only player able to build on this property. For all intents and purposes, it can be considered my property despite also appearing on the list presented in P-Z003. I do not deny that MasterCaelen bought the property, but I obviously do not believe he can be said to still own it.

4. The argument presented is further bolstered by the rental regions within c006. For example, lemon-apartment-2 is one of those regions and is presented in Exhibit D-L402. As can plainly be seen, I am listed as the landlord for that region rather than MasterCaelen. Any revenues collected in this rental region are sent to me rather than him.

5. Therefore, the "status quo" is not as simple as has been insinuated by Defendant's counsel. To claim that the present facts are MasterCaelen simply owns it is wildly misleading and prejudicial to realty.

6. Lastly, because I understand the submission of evidence alongside this motion may be a bit controversial, I would like to clarify that the Defense has not once contested my claims of ownership until this opening statement. I had no reason to believe that my current ownership was in doubt because in your court order enjoining me to this case (#34), the Defendant was entitled to file cross-claims regarding c006 but never choose to do so.

View attachment 82128
View attachment 82127

Click to expand...
All other parties (cc: @Dartanboy, @dodrio3, @asexualdinosaur, and @Johnes) may respond to this motion within 48 hours of its posting. The Court will not rule on the motion before that time.
 

Court Order


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

Jakkuwu (@Jakku), PurgePlanet (@PurgePlanet), ToadKing__ (@ToadKing), and Pepecuu (@Pepecuu) are summoned to appear as witnesses before the District Court in the case of ZxRiptide, Co-Plaintiff Pepecuu, and Co-Plaintiff Jakkuwu v. MasterCaelen and Co-Defendant MJL [2026] FCR 21.

Witnesses are ordered to identify themselves as present within 72 hours by making a post on this thread.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

 
Counselors @MJL, @Dartanboy, @dodrio3, @asexualdinosaur, and @Johnes:

The Court has summoned witnesses for questioning. The Court reminds all of you of this case's Trial Protocol and Rules. Please review them thoroughly and ensure that your filings will comport.

To set expectations on timeline: the Court will order the submission after all the witnesses have arrived (or laggard witnesses missed their deadline to appear). At such a time, we'll give 48 hours for the submission of each witness-calling party's consolidated direct examination questions and we'll go from there.
 
Franciscus said:

Court Order


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

Jakkuwu (@Jakku), PurgePlanet (@PurgePlanet), ToadKing__ (@ToadKing), and Pepecuu (@Pepecuu) are summoned to appear as witnesses before the District Court in the case of ZxRiptide, Co-Plaintiff Pepecuu, and Co-Plaintiff Jakkuwu v. MasterCaelen and Co-Defendant MJL [2026] FCR 21.

Witnesses are ordered to identify themselves as present within 72 hours by making a post on this thread.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

Click to expand...
I am present.
 
Franciscus said:

Court Order


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

Jakkuwu (@Jakku), PurgePlanet (@PurgePlanet), ToadKing__ (@ToadKing), and Pepecuu (@Pepecuu) are summoned to appear as witnesses before the District Court in the case of ZxRiptide, Co-Plaintiff Pepecuu, and Co-Plaintiff Jakkuwu v. MasterCaelen and Co-Defendant MJL [2026] FCR 21.

Witnesses are ordered to identify themselves as present within 72 hours by making a post on this thread.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

Click to expand...
1000012371.png

Here
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top