Lawsuit: Pending Pepecuu v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR ?

Pepecuu

Pepecuu

Citizen
President
Supporter
Oakridge Resident
President
Pepecuu
Pepecuu
President
Joined
Jan 3, 2025
Messages
187

Motion


MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

We request that the enforcement of the Court Order in FCR 89 [2025] be paused for the duration of this case. These plots rightfully belong to the Plaintiff as established in FCR 110 [2025]. It is illegal to transfer them to a third party, 12700k.



Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Pepecuu
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On the 1st of November 2025, The Hon. Ameslap issued a Court Order in the Verdict of FCR 89 [2025] that directly goes against an established Court Order by the Hon. AmityBlamity in FCR 110 [2025] regarding actions that are to be taken on plots S104 and C745. This directly undermines the relief that the Plaintiff may obtain, while also contradicting established Court Orders.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES
1. Pepecuu (Plaintiff)
2. Commonwealth of Redmont (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. On October 17, 2025, the Hon. AmityBlamity accepted the settlement offer in FCR 100 [2025], and ordered the DCT to evict and auction plots S104 and C745 (P-001).
2. On November 1, 2025, the Hon. Ameslap ignored this court order and the rights of Pepecuu, instead choosing to order the DCT to transfer these plots to 12700k in the verdict of FCR 89 [2025] (P-002).

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The abovementioned plots have been ordered by the Court to be auctioned off in accordance with the Settlement offer in FCR 100 [2025]. This Court Order must be upheld in favor of a later Court Order by Hon. Ameslap in FCR 89 [2025].

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The Court Order by Hon. Ameslap to transfer the plots S104 and C475 to 12700k, be overturned.
2. A declaratory judgment by the Court that the Court Order by Hon. AmityBlamity in FCR 110 [2025] is valid and shall be enforced by the Commonwealth of Redmont.

EVIDENCE
Pepecuu

Lawsuit: Adjourned Thread 'Pepecuu v MattTheSavvy [2025] FCR 100'

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Pepecuu
Plaintiff

V.

MattTheSavvy
Defendant

COMPLAINT

The Defendant transferred the collateral (of a mortgage loan managed by the Plaintiff) to a 3rd party without the Plaintiff's consent (as required in §3.1 of the Mortgage Agreement), committing Breach of Contract, and the loan has defaulted.

For the convenience of the Court, a copy of the signed contract has been attached.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES
1. Pepecuu (Plaintiff)
2. MattTheSavvy (Defendant)

II. FACTS
  1. On the 13th of...

ameslap

Lawsuit: Adjourned Post in thread '12700k v. MattTheSavvy [2025] FCR 89'

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
12700k v. MattTheSavvy - [2025] FCR 89
Civil Action

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION

  1. The Defendant breached their contract.
  2. The Defense failed to contest any facts or provide any evidence.

II. DEFENDANT’S POSITION
  1. “I think… thank you”
  2. Contract is “wack”

III. THE COURT OPINION
Let me get this out of the way. This is an obvious situation of breach of contract and the Defendant failed to uphold their terms. The Contract allows for the recovery of the balance...


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 1st day of November 2025.

 

Motion


MOTION TO RECUSE

The Plaintiff requests that the Hon. Ameslap be recused from this case as it revolves around their actions.

 
Your honor (whoever you may be),

As someone familiar with Common Law, the Constitution, and Property Law, as well as being familiar with the cases involving these plots, I request to file an Amicus Curiae Brief about the aforementioned things.
 
Dartanboy said:
Your honor (whoever you may be),

As someone familiar with Common Law, the Constitution, and Property Law, as well as being familiar with the cases involving these plots, I request to file an Amicus Curiae Brief about the aforementioned things.
Click to expand...
Absolutely not.

Counselor, you were lead counsel in FCR 89. You are currently contesting the verdict of FCR 100 in FCR 110. The aforementioned cases all, in some way, concern S104 and C475 and who their rightful owner should be. You are absolutely biased against the plaintiff here, and I do not believe you can offer an impartial view of the situation.

Summons will be issued shortly.
 
AmityBlamity said:
Absolutely not.

Counselor, you were lead counsel in FCR 89. You are currently contesting the verdict of FCR 100 in FCR 110. The aforementioned cases all, in some way, concern S104 and C475 and who their rightful owner should be. You are absolutely biased against the plaintiff here, and I do not believe you can offer an impartial view of the situation.

Summons will be issued shortly.
Click to expand...
Your honor, I ask you reconsider:

I couldn't actually care less whether 12700k receives the plots, as I'm being awarded $75,000 in legal fees either way.

My analysis would be, as my Amicus Curiae Briefs always are, strictly factual.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top