Appeal: Pending In re [2026] FCR 21 | [2026] SCR 19

MJL

MJL

Citizen
Supporter
Oakridge Resident
Education Department
Change Maker
MJL_
MJL_
Archivist
Joined
Mar 3, 2026
Messages
145
Last edited:

Brief


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Brief - Basis for Appeal

MJL_,
Appellant

v.

MasterCaelen,
Appellee

To the honorable justices of the Supreme Court:

I. INTRODUCTION
The Federal Court made a grave error when it made its ruling. This is supported by (1) one critical fact not considered by this court, (2) two unaddressed arguments which significantly effect the legal basis for my claims, and (3) a few other miscellania details that demonstrate proper care was not taken with this outcome. Starting from the first and most important and working our way down to the least:

  • No claim was ever made by me against MasterCaelen.
I was forced into legal purgatory given my lack of a cross-claim against MasterCaelen, I will contend further in this brief that it does not make sense to rule against me in favor of a party I made no adverse claim towards.

Second, the court explicitly ignored arguments based on possession in favour of the realty plug-in being the only controlling factor. As I will argue, this is a grave mistake that undermines our current system of legal ownership because the court did not consider the second part of the argument I made which demonstrates a lack of care was not taken in how this verdict would apply precedent against corporate ownership of real property. The twin arguments of possession and conveyance cannot be held in isolation of one another.

Lastly, the federal court simply was wrong about a few facts of this case as it regarded plot c006. This likely occurred because I was not in an actual cross-claim with MasterCaelen or because of genuine mistakes made by the presiding judicial officer.

II. ON QUASI-CROSS CLAIMS.
I would be overjoyed to hear that I am wrong, but I have never heard of a court engaging in a "quasi-cross claim" ([2026] FCR 21, Post #187). Parties either make their claims towards one another, or they do not and its dismissed. This section exams the nature of the cross-claim the court ruled on and why dismissal should have been the proper outcome for this case.

(a) Verdict relies on a claim not made.
Judgment on the crossclaim is entered against MJL in favor of MasterCaelen. (ZxRiptide, Co-Plaintiff Pepecuu, and Co-Plaintiff Jakkuwu v. MasterCaelen and Co-Defendant MJL [2026] FCR 21, Post #206, IV. Order)
Click to expand...
To the federal court, I had a cross-claim by my mere presence in the lawsuit. This is despite the fact I did not desire to continue to be there. I had made a motion to dismiss (ibid, Post #105), and I stated my agreement with another motion to dismiss from a different party (ibid, Posts #152 & #155).

Therefore, I simply contend I was not making any claim against MasterCaelen... because I just did not. When a party files a complaint, cross-claim, or counterclaim is the moment the party makes a claim. I did none of those things with respect to MasterCaelen, so I should not have been treated as if I did.

The reason I was enjoined to the case was to defend my interests against ZxRiptide who made a specific claim towards c006. Once that was settled, I sought dismissal only to be denied. While I never made a cross-claim towards MasterCaelen, the Federal Court ruled I had an adverse interest.

I, therefore, was forced in a situation where I had to litigate a case without any active claims. I did have an active answer filed regarding co-plaintiff Pepecuu (ibid, Post #64), but that was never a major controversy. The court correctly ruled c006 should not be granted to Pepecuu because they never had a position it.

Still, I was left in a rather awkward position in this case. I was told my presence was required but had nothing meaningful to contribute. I was told I had a conflicting claim with MasterCaelen, but one was never filed.

If nothing else I am going to say is heard, let it be this: The judgement should be vacated solely for the reason it ruled against claims I did not formally make.

(b) The Steady Undermining Rule 5.5
At this point in my legal career, I have engaged in a number of multi-party lawsuits. I have gotten the sense for when a lawsuit is baseless or when it fails to make a claim. I personally litigated In re [2026] FCR 47 | [2026] SCR 11, and the controversy of that appeal came about after a Motion to Dismiss under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim) was submitted (ko531 v. Incarnation__ & Jakkuwu_ et. al [2026] FCR 47, Post #106).

Though I did not properly cite it, I made a motion to dismiss in this case partially under Rule 5.5 ("No party outside the lead plaintiff, ZxRiptide, has demonstrated a specific claim towards c006." Post #105). I was a bit too optimistic about the legal process and assumed I would just be awarded C006 by default, but I realize it was a mistake to ask for that. Without a claim, there can be award. I never made the claim, so I could not be given it.

In ko531 v. Incarnation__ & Jakkuwu_ et. al, the claim wasn't dismissed because the complaint was amended. Here, though, there was no claim to amend. If a party has no outstanding formalized claim, then a Rule 5.5 Motion to Dismiss should have been granted.

(c) Who was meant to make a claim?
While we are discussing the nature of legal claims, I want to enlighten this court on something. I stated multiple times and in multiple places that I owned Plot c006. Was this ever contested by MasterCaelen? No, not until the court asked his public defender if they contested my claim part-way through the case (Post #157). No details were provided.

I bring this up because the prevailing assumption among many in the legal community was I meant to file a cross-claim. This was certainly the view held by the exalted attorney AsexualDinosaur in Post #152.

However, I would like to challenge that notion for a moment. If I am under the belief that I presently own the property, why would I need to make any cross-claim? Were it not for this lawsuit, I would likely have had the DCT already transfer the plot for me.

I present this argument because I want to clarify what I am asking for. If this court were to vacate the lower court's ruling as it regards to Plot C006, then it is not my opinion that the plot stops being mine unless an eviction takes place. Clarity is needed here because the lower court has introduced confusion.

III. CONVEYANCE AND POSSESSION.
(a) Conveyance
The clear intent to convey a plot is all that is needed to transfer ownership from one player to another legal person. For example, a CEO of a real estate company only needs to convey their plots to said real estate company for those plots to be considered owned by the company.

I bring this example up because I believe the Federal Court has introduced uncertainty with regards to our property laws. If a plug-in transfer trulely is required to effect a change of ownership, then no business can be said to own real estate. The plug-in does not allow for it. If two or more people enter into association with one another, be it through informal agreement, contract, or incorporation, the plug-in is incapable of demonstrating their joint ownership of a plot.

This is unreasonable. Whether anyone wants to argue that MasterCaelen had shared ownership in the plot, he lost his economic interests the moment he was was long-deported. I, therefore, was left with exclusive ownership to the plot. For example, that is why when Co-Plaintiff Jakkuwu was deported, a new representative for Two Guys Realty was able to easily obtain possession of his properties.

The clear intent to convey a plot should be the only requirement for conveyance (besides possession). Any determination otherwise undermines this server's long standing tradition of collective ownership via incorporation and voluntary association. I cannot cite any court cases here because it is just so commonly understood that no one has disputed it before.

(b) Possession
The other half of this coin is possession. Possession is meant to bolster a claim for actual conveyance; it is not the argument in itself. Possession demonstrates someone has a valid and legitimate claim to ownership or at least that they would be harmed by a property's repossession.

I acknowledge this server does not have adverse-possession ownership claims currently recognized in law. My argument does not rest on simple possession, but the combination of possession and conveyance.

However, the court ignored claims of possession in its determination of the decision to grant this plot to MasterCaelen. I do not know why my clear and demonstrated possession was relegated to that of a nonfactor, but it shows the court did not carefully review the facts of the case.

IV. MISC.
(a) False hypothetical
Continuing from that idea, I bring this court's attention to the hypothetical provided by the Federal Court in its determination of its decision:
Though MasterCaelen has few legal rights at the moment, he may still return at the end of his six-month long deportation. If C006 were to be evicted by the DCT at this moment, the notice of eviction would fall to MasterCaelen and not to MJL. MJL could, theoretically, have an opportunity to remedy the eviction notice themself since they have access to the property. However, if the plot were to be evicted, renumeration for the eviction would fall to MasterCaelen. And if the plot were to be sold, the new owner would have the right to remove MJL as an added player on the plot. ([2026] FCR 21, Post #206, III. Legal Analysis)
Click to expand...

This hypothetical would fail to materialize for a number of reasons.
(1) First, Caelen is not deported for six months but indefinitely. I do not know if the court realized that or not. It was possibly just an arbitrary number and only meant to apply abstractly. Either way, I do not see the relevance of ruling based on the possibility a deported player being able to come back because as it stands MasterCaelen cannot.
(2) As I stated in Section II(c), I would likely have had this plot transferred into my name without this court case. The only reason I was not able to pursue this was because the plot was frozen by court order.
(3) Eviction would result in my likely removal from plot c006 proper, but it would not result in the automatic deletion of the current lemon-apartment regions. The current tenants of these two apartments could, likewise, not be evicted without proper notice given to them per the current Property Standards Act. However, the act makes it clear that the Landlord would have to serve the eviction notice, so the new plot owner could not do so without my compliance because I am the plug-in listed "landlord" of these rentable regions.

I, therefore, contend the Federal Court misunderstood what legal rights were available to me prior to this ruling.

(b) Was it a gift or a contract?
I believe the court did not further understand my lack of a contract claim and its relation to the precedent found in Plura72 v. The Redmont Beach Party et al. [2025] DCR 71. For context, here is the quote:
MJL said:
While I have not necessarily demonstrated the elements of a full contract were present in my dealings with MasterCaelen regarding Plot C006, another District Court has previously recognized that a conveyance can take the form of a gift and subsequently upheld property rights on that basis (Plura72 v. The Redmont Beach Party et al. [2025] DCR 71).

...

Further, we see in Plura72 v. The Redmont Beach Party et al. a non-binding precedent for transfering the title of real property (in both cases as a gift) even without a contract present ([2025] DCR 71, Post #193).
Click to expand...

I did not demonstrate a contract was present because I could not do so. The evidence for a contract would have been given had I known I would have to defend a claim against MasterCaelen's interests. As I stated in that same post though, I had given something in exchange for the plot because MasterCaelen took my life. I cannot go into detail about it without submitting the additional evidence.

Either way, I mentioned Plura72 v. The Redmont Beach Party et al. [2025] DCR 71 because it was able to demonstrate previous district court decisions only required the conveyance of a plot to uphold ownership. I was not blind to the idea that conveyance in that case took the form of a plug-in transfer.

(c) On Contractual Analysis & PD Overreach
I believe the Court failed to come to the correct verdict because it viewed my claim to Plot C006 through a narrowly viewing of whether a contract was present between myself and MasterCaelen. As I stated, I was not able to demonstrate this because I did not make any cross-claim against MasterCaelen. Of course, when the court sets up the dominoes to fall a certain way, the outcome is predetermined. I was never going to be able to demonstrate a contract because I did not have to until the public defender started making claims towards my property.

The public defender in a case like this is solely meant to be a procedural representative. We all intuitively understand that a deported player has no rights, but for some reason this deported player was given more rights to ownership than me.. why? Is the point of the public defender program to protect the estates of deported players?

My point is that when it became time to answer the Court's question in Post #157, the public defender should have stated he had no opinion. He is not MasterCaelen's lawyer; he represents the process. The process was that no formalized claim was made against the defendant by me or by him against me.

We cannot allow the public defender program, as burdened as it is, to be used to grossly overreach beyond representing the process for deported players. It just would not make sense to allow for that.

V. In Conclusion. Questions.
For all these reasons and more, I believe the Supreme Court needs to answer the following questions:

  1. Can the court rule for or against a cross-claim that was not made?
  2. Should parties be dismissed when they have no remaining significant claims in a multi-party case?
  3. Can the clear into to convey a plot, and the possession of that plot, establish ownership where it contradicts information found in the realty plug-in?
  4. Is the evidence already provided in this case enough to establish possession of a plot?
  5. Is the Public Defender, while representing a deported player, allowed to make counterclaims, cross-claims, or any other claim against another party?

Thank you for your time.

 
First, case name administratively modified to fit court convention.


MJL said:
Username: MJL_

I am representing myself

What Case are you Appealing?: [2026] FCR 21

Link to the Original Case: Lawsuit: Adjourned - ZxRiptide, Co-Plaintiff Pepecuu, and Co-Plaintiff Jakkuwu v. MasterCaelen and Co-Defendant MJL [2026] FCR 21

Basis for Appeal: See the brief attached.

Supporting Evidence: Two Guys Realty v. MasterCaelen [2026] FCR 43
Click to expand...
Second, I make a note as an administrative clerk for the Court that the initial filing does not satisfy the appeal format as outlined here; specifically, any additional information and whether you intend to seek oral argument. I understand the enforcement on this format has been somewhat lax in the past, but it is important to try to be better and standardize. I take responsibility for this failing, and ask Appellant to duly modify their initial filing at their earliest convenience.
 
Smallfries said:
First, case name administratively modified to fit court convention.



Second, I make a note as an administrative clerk for the Court that the initial filing does not satisfy the appeal format as outlined here; specifically, any additional information and whether you intend to seek oral argument. I understand the enforcement on this format has been somewhat lax in the past, but it is important to try to be better and standardize. I take responsibility for this failing, and ask Appellant to duly modify their initial filing at their earliest convenience.
Click to expand...
Corrected. If you want to know easily get everyone to follow the correct procedure, then I'll just inform you that you need to update the form here.
 
Smallfries said:
I will be presiding officer in this matter.

The Supreme Court of Redmont grants review to this appeal. Appellee's estate will be represented by the public defender's office, with all deliberate speed.
Click to expand...
Your honor, it would appear that DHS needs to be informed about this matter. They are saying I still owe legal fees.
Edit: retracted
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top