Lawsuit: Pending The Bank of Reveille v. KingBob99878 [2025] DCR 108

BlueRiverOtter

BlueRiverOtter

Citizen
BlueRiverOtter
BlueRiverOtter
Barrister
Joined
Jul 1, 2025
Messages
99

Motion

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

Your Honor the Plaintiff respectfully motions for an Emergency Injunction to freeze the transfer and prevent eviction by the DCT for the property R036. Emergency Injunctions in order to prevent government eviction in cases of collateral are nothing new and have been previously established in Redmont common law, the Plaintiff will cite [2025] FCR 100, [2025] FCR 108, and [2025] FCR 128.



Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

The Bank of Reveille
Plaintiff

v.

KingBob99878
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The Bank of Reveille entered justly into a lending contract with the defendant. The Bank has fulfilled its obligations under the agreement and expects the defendant to do the same. The defendant has disregarded the Bank of Reveille's trust in declaring abandonment of the loan. While we have always stood firm and sought to avoid litigation, the bank believes the defendant has engaged in bad faith and wishes to collect the currently defaulted loan.
Click to expand...


I. PARTIES
1. The Bank of Reveille
2. KingBob99878 (Defendant)

II. FACTS
(Comment: all dates are in MM/DD/YY format, additionally the timezone used is Eastern Standard Time or UTC-5)
1. On or around 12/4/25, the Defendant notified the Bank of Reveille that they wished to take out a personal loan for $25,000 (
2. On or around 12/7/25, the Defendant notified the Bank of Reveille that they wished to move forward with the Loan Agreement provided to the Defendant on 12/4/25.
3. On or around 12/8/25, the Defendant was notified by a representative of the Bank of Reveille that funds had been wired to the Defendant and provided a screenshot to the Defendant of proof of transfer.
4. On or around 12/9/25, the defendant requested to modify the loan agreement for an adjustment to their repayment plan. The Bank of Reveille denied this request, reaffirmed the repayment structure, and referenced the agreement the Defendant signed.
5. On or around 12/16/25, 2 days past the deadline for the first payment on the loan, the Defendant was notified by an alternative bank representative of the past due payment and informed of the repercussions of a late fee as well as reporting of the missed payment
6. On or around 12/16/25, the Defendant notified the Bank of Reveille that they intend to leave DC. The bank understood this as a notification of a default on their outstanding obligations to repay the loan.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Breach of Contract​
The Defendant by announcing his leave from the server to the Plaintiff 2 weeks after payment was due, failing to inform the Plaintiff on how he intended on fulfilling his contractual obligations, and literally asking the Plaintiff to sue him he very clearly did not have any intention on paying back the loan.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. $28,850 in Compensatory Damages awarded to the plaintiff comprising $25,000 for the principal loan amount along with the $3,900 in accrued interest/Fees on the loan.

2. A court order to transfer ownership of the collateral (plot R036) over to the Plaintiff.

2. 30% of damages awarded in Legal Fees to Talion & Partners pursuant to the Legal Damages Act

Evidence:
1766211391101.png
1766211419084.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 16 day of December 2025

 

Writ of Summons

@KingBOB99878, is required to appear before the District Court in the case of The Bank of Reveille v. KingBob99878 [2025] DCR 108

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.

 
BlueRiverOtter said:

Motion

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

Your Honor the Plaintiff respectfully motions for an Emergency Injunction to freeze the transfer and prevent eviction by the DCT for the property R036. Emergency Injunctions in order to prevent government eviction in cases of collateral are nothing new and have been previously established in Redmont common law, the Plaintiff will cite [2025] FCR 100, [2025] FCR 108, and [2025] FCR 128.

Click to expand...
Granted.
 

Court Order


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

The DHS has notified this court that property r036, previously held by the defendant, was transferred to ‘12700k’ 3 days before this case was filed, therefore, the court lifts the emergency injunction put in place against the property
The court has also noted a lack of proof of representation in the complaint and asks the plaintiff to provide one within 24 hours


sincerely,
Magistrate Dearev

 
dearev said:

Court Order


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

The DHS has notified this court that property r036, previously held by the defendant, was transferred to ‘12700k’ 3 days before this case was filed, therefore, the court lifts the emergency injunction put in place against the property
The court has also noted a lack of proof of representation in the complaint and asks the plaintiff to provide one within 24 hours


sincerely,
Magistrate Dearev

Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1509.png
    IMG_1509.png
    710.3 KB · Views: 24
  • IMG_1508.png
    IMG_1508.png
    930.9 KB · Views: 23
dearev said:

Court Order


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

The DHS has notified this court that property r036, previously held by the defendant, was transferred to ‘12700k’ 3 days before this case was filed, therefore, the court lifts the emergency injunction put in place against the property
The court has also noted a lack of proof of representation in the complaint and asks the plaintiff to provide one within 24 hours


sincerely,
Magistrate Dearev

Click to expand...

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
Motion to Emergency Injunction

Your, honor the Defendant effectively defrauded 12700k under false pretenses.

The transaction was illict under the terms of the loan agreement mentioned in this complaint and therefore void ab initio.

Thusly the Plaintiff requests an immediate asset freeze on plot R-036

 
May it please the court, I would like to file an amicus brief as to the legal status of R036. I am 12700k's attorney.
 
Superwoops said:
May it please the court, I would like to file an amicus brief as to the legal status of R036. I am 12700k's attorney.
Click to expand...
you may. Please file your brief within 24 hours
 
dearev said:

Writ of Summons

@KingBOB99878, is required to appear before the District Court in the case of The Bank of Reveille v. KingBob99878 [2025] DCR 108

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.

Click to expand...

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
Motion to Default Judgement

The Defendant although having conducted the transaction with 12000k 3 days before filing, and being active on discord (see attached) has failed to make an appearance before this court within the deadline.

 

Attachments

  • IMG_1511.png
    IMG_1511.png
    336.2 KB · Views: 23
  • IMG_1512.png
    IMG_1512.png
    351.5 KB · Views: 23
  • IMG_1513.png
    IMG_1513.png
    355.1 KB · Views: 23
BlueRiverOtter said:

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
Motion to Default Judgement

The Defendant although having conducted the transaction with 12000k 3 days before filing, and being active on discord (see attached) has failed to make an appearance before this court within the deadline.

Click to expand...

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
Motion to Amend

Amend header of the replied motion as follows “IN THE [red]FEDERAL[/red] [green]DISTRICT[/green]

 

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Emergency Injunction

In [2025] FCR 131 the Federal Court ruled that a lawsuit in it of itself cannot be evidence of a risk of asset flight and there needs to be substantial evidence of the risk of an asset flight before a court may grant an asset freeze for such reason. The Defendant has dispersed his collateral and has in discord announced his intention to disperse his assets further, there is an incredibly reasonable risk of an asset flight. For that reason we request an asset freeze on the Defense.

 
BlueRiverOtter said:

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
Motion to Amend

Amend header of the replied motion as follows “IN THE [red]FEDERAL[/red] [green]DISTRICT[/green]

Click to expand...
Granted.
BlueRiverOtter said:

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
Motion to Default Judgement

The Defendant although having conducted the transaction with 12000k 3 days before filing, and being active on discord (see attached) has failed to make an appearance before this court within the deadline.

Click to expand...
Denied. A public defender will be appointed shortly. The defendant has only sent two discord messages since this case was filled and was last seen ingame 18 days ago.
1766510735928.png
1766510871325.png
BlueRiverOtter said:

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Emergency Injunction

In [2025] FCR 131 the Federal Court ruled that a lawsuit in it of itself cannot be evidence of a risk of asset flight and there needs to be substantial evidence of the risk of an asset flight before a court may grant an asset freeze for such reason. The Defendant has dispersed his collateral and has in discord announced his intention to disperse his assets further, there is an incredibly reasonable risk of an asset flight. For that reason we request an asset freeze on the Defense.

Click to expand...
GRANTED UNTIL A RESPONSE IS FILED BY THE PUBLIC DEFENDER.
 
BlueRiverOtter said:

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
Motion to Emergency Injunction

Your, honor the Defendant effectively defrauded 12700k under false pretenses.

The transaction was illict under the terms of the loan agreement mentioned in this complaint and therefore void ab initio.

Thusly the Plaintiff requests an immediate asset freeze on plot R-036

Click to expand...

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Amend

The Plaintiff requests the replied EI be amended in order to clarify and contextualize it.
“
Your, honor the Defendant effectively defrauded 12700k under false pretenses.

The transaction was illicit under the terms of the loan agreement mentioned in this complaint and therefore void ab initio.

Thusly the Plaintiff requests an immediate asset freeze on plot R-036 in order to protect the Plaintiff’s contractual right to seize the collateral.
”

 
BlueRiverOtter said:

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Amend

The Plaintiff requests the replied EI be amended in order to clarify and contextualize it.
“
Your, honor the Defendant effectively defrauded 12700k under false pretenses.

The transaction was illicit under the terms of the loan agreement mentioned in this complaint and therefore void ab initio.

Thusly the Plaintiff requests an immediate asset freeze on plot R-036 in order to protect the Plaintiff’s contractual right to seize the collateral.
”

Click to expand...
Granted.

A ruling on the injuction will follow after the brief is submitted.
 

Brief


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Amicus Brief

On the legal status of plot R036

The legal question here is whether the lien claim is still valid if the property is transferred. Upon having read the contract, I am convinced that the Plaintiff in this case has no claim whatsoever to the property in question.

A lien was placed on plot R036 at the signing of the contract. My client then created a contract of sale between KingBOB and himself. However, I am not satisfied that Consideration existed. This is because a lien, in the Court's opinion, may "run with the land", in which case the Defendant's failure to disclose would make this a misrepresentation by omitting the fact that the plot was collateral for a loan. Therefore, if the Court were to find the sale to be void, we would ask for a rescission, supported by §8(1)(a) of the Act of Congress - Contracts Act. This would reverse all parties to the way they were before the sale; that is, my client would get his full funds back, actioned by DHS if necessary, and the plot would return to the Defendant's hands.

This would be the case, were a lien recognised by the law. Since no party in this case has demonstrated that the Defendant is insolvent, no part of the Act of Congress - Bankruptcy Band-Aid Act applies here (refer to §3(2)(a)). So, we must look at previous rulings. As Judge Mug well points out in Lawsuit: Adjourned - in re: S104/C745 [2025] FCR 124, "The Judiciary, and the Commonwealth as a whole, is not beholden to private collateral agreements between private citizens. Congress has enacted no law enshrining lienholders, thus no statutory right to possession exists under a lien for lienholders. " Let it also be known that this is an FCR case and poses superior precedent value over DCR cases. Because the bankruptcy law is not applicable in this case, we find ourselves in the same situation as in the beginning of the whole ordeal surrounding MattTheSavvy and subsequently the aforementioned administrative hearing. Could this be a breach of contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant? Perhaps, although that is for the Court to decide. Do the terms of the contract extend to my client as well? No.

Therefore, it is my legal opinion that the Court should not grant any freeze on R036 as the Plaintiff has no legal claim to it.

 
Superwoops said:

Brief


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Amicus Brief

On the legal status of plot R036

The legal question here is whether the lien claim is still valid if the property is transferred. Upon having read the contract, I am convinced that the Plaintiff in this case has no claim whatsoever to the property in question.

A lien was placed on plot R036 at the signing of the contract. My client then created a contract of sale between KingBOB and himself. However, I am not satisfied that Consideration existed. This is because a lien, in the Court's opinion, may "run with the land", in which case the Defendant's failure to disclose would make this a misrepresentation by omitting the fact that the plot was collateral for a loan. Therefore, if the Court were to find the sale to be void, we would ask for a rescission, supported by §8(1)(a) of the Act of Congress - Contracts Act. This would reverse all parties to the way they were before the sale; that is, my client would get his full funds back, actioned by DHS if necessary, and the plot would return to the Defendant's hands.

This would be the case, were a lien recognised by the law. Since no party in this case has demonstrated that the Defendant is insolvent, no part of the Act of Congress - Bankruptcy Band-Aid Act applies here (refer to §3(2)(a)). So, we must look at previous rulings. As Judge Mug well points out in Lawsuit: Adjourned - in re: S104/C745 [2025] FCR 124, "The Judiciary, and the Commonwealth as a whole, is not beholden to private collateral agreements between private citizens. Congress has enacted no law enshrining lienholders, thus no statutory right to possession exists under a lien for lienholders. " Because the bankruptcy law is not applicable in this case, we find ourselves in the same situation as in the beginning of the whole ordeal surrounding MattTheSavvy and subsequently the aforementioned administrative hearing. Could this be a breach of contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant? Perhaps, although that is for the Court to decide. Do the terms of the contract extend to my client as well? No.

Therefore, it is my legal opinion that the Court should not grant any freeze on R036 as the Plaintiff has no legal claim to it.

Click to expand...
Permission to respond?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top