Lawsuit: In Session mani_mincraft v. KukkiNekko [2026] DCR 64

L

Le9endz_

Citizen
Le9endz_
Le9endz_
Barrister
Joined
May 27, 2026
Messages
25
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


mani_minecraft(Represented by Le9endz_)
Plaintiff

v.

KukkiNekko
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
I joined the server after watching the YeahJaron video. My friend coralap had played for several hours at that point so he was willing to help me start out. He told me to come to oakridge so that I can get a diamond axe and some money. We talked over chat because his mic didn’t work at that time. The first thing I see as I teleport to oakridge is the casino. I wanted to use my 300 and maybe double or triple them. We wanted a way to get money in the casino without taking money from each other so we glanced over the 1v1 or 1v-many machines and went directly to the slots. Of course at the time we were excited and wanted to have fun with the free 300 that I got so we used it and coralap gave me 500 more to gamble as a gift to start with. The slots didnt work for me, i tried pressing the signs to buy a roll but it didnt allow me it said "[some player name]'s barrel can is private" or something along these lines. So I payed coralap back and he gambled for me. I told him what i wanted to play and he played for me. At the end we lost 1.1k (even more than than what coralap gave me and my starter money combined). I feel that it’s the casinos fault I lost the money as they did not list the odds of winning.

I. PARTIES
1. mani_mincraft
2. KukkiNekko

II. FACTS
1. mani_mincraft was a new player when the incident occurred.
2. mani_mincraft was with Coralap at the time of the incident.
3. Coralap gave mani_mincraft $500 to help him start since he had only received $300 from the government as his new player balance.
4. Coralap had told mani_mincraft to meet him at Oakridge spawn.
5. mani_mincraft wasn't able to gamble so he gave his money to Coralap to gamble for him.
6. In the end they lost $1.1k in total.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Under Section VII:Sub-Section 9 it states: misrepresents or manipulates the odds, outcomes, or terms of a gambling or gaming activity to deceive participants or gain unfair advantage. Since the casino didn't list the odds of gambling, it shows they are already in clear violation of that law.
2. Since mani_minecraft was also a new player who had just joined the server, they have also broken Section VII:Sub-Section 10 which states: exploits the inexperience, wealth, or assets of a new player for unlawful gain or advantage.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The Plaintiff hereby requests from the Defendant $20,000 for Fraudulent Gaming Conduct.
2. The Plaintiff also requests $3,000 from the Defendant for Exploitation of New Players.


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 May 2026.
Google Doc Evidence: Coralap & mani_mincraft vs KukkiNekko.
 
Matthew100x said:
What exactly are you requesting in terms of damages?
Click to expand...
AMENDED SPECIFICATION OF DAMAGES
The Plaintiff clarifies that the $23,000 total requested from the Defendant is a civil remedy, distinct from government-enforced criminal fine caps, and is calculated as follows:
1. Actual Restitution: $1,100
  • Direct reimbursement for the financial capital lost by the Plaintiff due to the non-functioning, hidden-odds machines.
2. Compensatory Damages for Fraudulent Gaming Conduct: $10,000
  • Requested to compensate for the emotional distress and severe disadvantage caused to a brand-new player who was actively deceived by an illegal casino operation violating Section VII:Sub-Section 9.
3. Punitive/Exemplary Damages for Exploitation of New Players: $11,900
  • Requested under Section VII:Sub-Section 10 to serve as a severe civil deterrent. The Defendant actively targeted a vulnerable new user who joined the server via the YeahJaron video. A high financial penalty is required to ensure this casino operator does not profit off exploiting server growth.
Total Civil Relief Sought: $23,000
 

Writ of Summons

@kukkinekko is required to appear before the District Court in the case of mani_mincraft v. KukkiNekko [2026] DCR 64

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.

 
Kukkinekko has failed to respond to this lawsuit. The Court, by judicial notice, is writing into the record that the Defendant has been online in the last few days. This Court will be granting default judgment in this matter. The Court will be in recess pending a verdict.
 

Attachments

  • 2026-06-02_22.15.59.png
    2026-06-02_22.15.59.png
    1 MB · Views: 25
  • 2026-06-02_22.15.05.png
    2026-06-02_22.15.05.png
    772.9 KB · Views: 27

Motion To Compel​

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff strictly requests that the defendant may only be given 24 hours to seek counsel.

If the defendant fails to seek counsel by the deadline, I request that the court immediately resume the recess and proceed with the final default verdict.
 
SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE SUBMISSION

Your Honour,
I am submitting these Discord screenshots as additional evidence.

As you can see, the Defendant reached out to us privately to try and get us to drop the case. Instead of addressing the actual laws he broke, he tried to scare me—and I am a pretty new player(1 week)—by threatening me with fake legal fees if we didn't accept a cheap $1,000 buyout.

We rejected his offer. This clearly shows he knows he is in the wrong and is just trying to dodge accountability. We ask the court to keep this behavior in mind when deciding the final damages.

Edited to include photos.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3199.png
    IMG_3199.png
    1.3 MB · Views: 27
  • IMG_3200.png
    IMG_3200.png
    1.3 MB · Views: 26
Last edited:
AMENDMENT TO PARTIES

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff requests to formally amend the filing party to include Coralap as a Co-Plaintiff alongside mani_mincraft.

Because Coralap was acting as the direct physical agent using the casino signs on behalf of mani_mincraft's funds, adding both players ensures the court can fully resolve the financial injury caused by the Defendant.
 
AMENDMENT TO PARTIES

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff requests to formally amend the filing party to include Coralap as a Co-Plaintiff alongside mani_mincraft.

Because Coralap was acting as the direct physical agent using the casino signs on behalf of mani_mincraft's funds, adding both players ensures the court can fully resolve the financial injury caused by the Defendant.

(Website was glitched so when I was spamming post it duped it somehow)
 
I've made a mistake in calculating the time for default judgment. I did not give the full 72 hours. @kukkinekko is present for the lawsuit. Have you been able to find counsel? If not, I can give another 48 hours due to my mistake.

I am rejecting all the above Plaintiff's request since these are discovery requests and we're presently not in discovery.
 
Matthew100x said:
I've made a mistake in calculating the time for default judgment. I did not give the full 72 hours. @kukkinekko is present for the lawsuit. Have you been able to find counsel? If not, I can give another 48 hours due to my mistake.

I am rejecting all the above Plaintiff's request since these are discovery requests and we're presently not in discovery.
Click to expand...

Your Honour,

Theory, Talion, & Partners Inc. will be representing the Defendant.

1780679592817-png.84723

We would like to know why the Court decided to proceed on Default Judgement instead of appointing a Public Defender, a long standing precedent of the Hnble. Court and Courts above it.
 

Attachments

  • 1780679592817.png
    1780679592817.png
    21.3 KB · Views: 31
TheSnowGuardian said:
Your Honour,

Theory, Talion, & Partners Inc. will be representing the Defendant.

1780679592817-png.84723

We would like to know why the Court decided to proceed on Default Judgement instead of appointing a Public Defender, a long standing precedent of the Hnble. Court and Courts above it.
Click to expand...
It is this Court's discretion on whether to grant default judgment. That being said, the default was retracted because of an error in calculating time.

Regardless, the Defendant shall now have 72 hours to post an Answer to the Complaint.
 
Your Honour,
I'm the new lead counsel on this case on behalf of TT&P.

I'd like to request a 24 hour extension to familiarize myself with the case and accounting for the fact that I'm sick. Thanks.
 
Le9endz_ said:
SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE SUBMISSION

Your Honour,
I am submitting these Discord screenshots as additional evidence.

As you can see, the Defendant reached out to us privately to try and get us to drop the case. Instead of addressing the actual laws he broke, he tried to scare me—and I am a pretty new player(1 week)—by threatening me with fake legal fees if we didn't accept a cheap $1,000 buyout.

We rejected his offer. This clearly shows he knows he is in the wrong and is just trying to dodge accountability. We ask the court to keep this behavior in mind when deciding the final damages.

Edited to include photos.
Click to expand...

Objection


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

The document and screenshots presented by the Plaintiff are not adequately labeled as required by Rule 4.6 under the deprecated version of the Court Rules and Procedures, which pertain to this case. The Defendant respectfully asks that these submissions be struck for improper formatting, as also permissible under Rule 4.6.



This post was edited in order to quote the Plaintiff's supplemental evidence submission.
 
J_The_Fae said:

Objection


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

The document and screenshots presented by the Plaintiff are not adequately labeled as required by Rule 4.6 under the deprecated version of the Court Rules and Procedures, which pertain to this case. The Defendant respectfully asks that these submissions be struck for improper formatting, as also permissible under Rule 4.6.



This post was edited in order to quote the Plaintiff's supplemental evidence submission.
Click to expand...
Okay. So this was already resolved here:
Matthew100x said:
I am rejecting all the above Plaintiff's request since these are discovery requests and we're presently not in discovery.
Click to expand...

So I am going to be denying your objection as moot. Can the Defendant please post an Answer to the Complaint.
 
Matthew100x said:
Okay. So this was already resolved here:


So I am going to be denying your objection as moot. Can the Defendant please post an Answer to the Complaint.
Click to expand...
Your Honor, respectfully, the objection additionally refers to the "Google Doc Evidence" in the Plaintiff's original case filing, which is similarly unlabeled. The Defendant wished to request that this also be struck for improper formatting.

Answer to Complaint


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

mani_mincraft
Plaintiff

v.

KukkiNekko
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. The Defendant AFFIRMS mani_mincraft was a new player when the incident occurred.
2. The Defendant AFFIRMS mani_mincraft was with Coralap at the time of the incident.
3. The Defendant AFFIRMS Coralap gave mani_mincraft $500 to help him start since he had only received $300 from the government as his new player balance.
4. The Defendant AFFIRMS Coralap had told mani_mincraft to meet him at Oakridge spawn.
5. The Defendant AFFIRMS mani_mincraft wasn't able to gamble so he gave his money to Coralap to gamble for him.
6. The Defendant AFFIRMS in the end they lost $1.1k in total.
7. The Defendant DENIES that these facts outline a criminal action taken by the Defendant.

II. DEFENCES

1. Your Honor, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has committed fraudulent gaming conduct under the Criminal Code Act Part VII, §9. However, the Plaintiff has presented no concrete evidence of this. The chat logs that are presented merely show the amount of money lost, and the calculations for the odds themselves. There is no proof, nor any fact presented by the Plaintiff, to suggest that the Defendant misrepresented or manipulated these odds, or that such an action was intentional on the Defendant’s part “to deceive participants or gain unfair advantage” (as specified under the definition of fraudulent gaming conduct). Therefore, it is not clear that the Plaintiff’s loss was not their own responsibility, as a known risk taken when they chose to participate in gambling.

2. Additionally, despite Plaintiff’s claim of exploitation of new players under Part VII §10, there is no concrete proof to suggest that the Defendant manipulated the odds specifically to “[exploit] the inexperience, wealth, or assets of a new player “, nor that this provided the Defendant any “unlawful gain or advantage”. The Defendant not only lacked malicious intent, but also did not target the Plaintiff; nothing about the Defendant’s conduct or the casino is inherently directed at or aimed to exploit new players. The Plaintiff participated in a publicly available activity that was by no means specifically targeted at them, or at any group of players with a low playtime.

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 9th day of June 2026

 
We shall now be moving towards Discovery. Discovery will end in 5 days. Discovery can be voluntarily ended or extended with both parties agreeing to do so. Please remember the following rules:

Rule 4.2 (Submission Required For Use)​

All material used in legal arguments must have either been included in the case prior to the submission. Material must have been included within the complaint, within the answer, within an amendment to a complaint, within an amendment to an answer, or within a discovery submission. Otherwise the material will be deemed inadmissible and the argument can be voided by the presiding judge.

Rule 4.5 (Consent to End Discovery Early)​

If both parties consent to end Discovery early, they may request the presiding Judicial Officer to move to the next phase of the trial.

Rule 4.9 (Witness Protocol)​

A party may submit a list for witnesses at any time before the end of discovery. In order for a witness to be called during witness testimony, they must be announced under this rule, during discovery. Any witness may be objected to according to the objections laid out within rule 6.3.

Failure to adhere to the timelines of this rule may subject that party to a contempt of court charge at the presiding judge’s decision. The presiding judge shall include a warning regarding the timeline when summoning the witness.

Please remember that we are under the old Court Rules & Procedure for this case!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top