Lawsuit: Adjourned in re: S104/C745 [2025] FCR 124

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Muggy21

Citizen
Judge
Interior Department
Supporter
Aventura Resident
Change Maker Popular in the Polls Legal Eagle
Muggy21
Muggy21
Judge
Joined
Jul 1, 2022
Messages
472

Court Order


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Administrative Hearing : In Re: S104/C745 [2025] FCR 124

Initial Cases:

(Pepecuu) Pepe v. Matt [2025] FCR 100
(12700k) 12700k v. Matt [2025] FCR 89

Pending Cases:
(Pepecuu) Pepe v. CW [2025] FCR 116
(12700k) 12700k v. CW [2025] FCR 110


COUNSELORS: READ ALL INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY

@Pepecuu @12700k @Dartanboy @Attorney

The Federal Court has issued equally binding rulings that conflict. The pending cases before this Court may lead to paradoxical relief and, in their current format, denies parties the right to convince this Court in an adversarial nature against the other creditor. As both parties have prayed to the Federal Court to enforce their own respective Orders (see Initial Cases above), the Court sees fit to hold an administrative hearing to rectify the Orders. Counselors, this is not an appeal; FCR 100 and FCR 89 will not be amended. This is a hearing to find equitable relief between the parties in light of this Court’s confliction.


INSTRUCTIONS:

Pepecuu and 12700k (or their counselors):

Upon advising the Court of your appearance, you shall have Five Days to pose a brief to the Court in the following general format.

  1. WHY SHOULD YOUR SIDE PREVAIL
  2. WHY SHOULD OPPOSING SIDE FAIL

There will be an opportunity to give a reply brief from the opposing party; The deadline for a response is Three Days after opposing party’s submission. The Commonwealth will also brief on the matter, this brief will not be answerable. Parties may object or motion to strike, but a general response will not be permitted.

Arguments raised by parties and the Commonwealth in their respective cases (see above Pending Cases) will be preserved.
Commonwealth:

Upon advising the Court of your appearance, you shall answer this question in your brief, along with other arguments you may raise.

  1. ADVISED ACTION - What position should the Court take?

For posterity:

This hearing will allow parties to advocate for their client’s position in light of the confliction of the Court and the limitations of our laws. Furthermore, if a party wishes to appeal, this hearing gives the Supreme Court additional argument to use in rendering a final verdict. The Court will not entertain objections to the hearing, you may appeal to the Supreme Court upon the rendering of a final decision on this case.


AMICUS BRIEFS:

Any registered Attorney (or Barrister with Property and Administrative Law) may apply to the Court to be heard on amicus brief. You must provide a reason for your brief. You may not apply prior to all briefs being submitted to this Court. (Essentially, when Pepe and 12700k file their briefs, then you may apply.) Do not approach if you have a conflict with ANY party on the matter.



THE COURT’s ORDERS:

  1. All injunctions from the below cases persist. S104 and C475 shall not be disturbed, evicted, transferred, nor subject to any other action.
  2. [2025] FCR 116 and [2025] FCR 110 are administratively stayed.


In the interest of more efficient Courtroom proceedings, the Court will permit responses to motions without prior Court permission. The deadline for said motions shall be 48 hours.

Furthermore, in obedience with Rule 1.4, parties are advised that engaging in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of this Court or its proceedings may be held in Contempt of Court.



 
Last edited:

Writ of Summons

@Kaiserin_ @12700k @Dartanboy @Pepecuu , is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of in re: S104/C475 [2025] FCR 124

In the interest of more efficient Courtroom proceedings, the Court will permit responses to motions without prior Court permission. The deadline for said motions shall be 48 hours.

Furthermore, in obedience with Rule 1.4, parties are advised that engaging in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of this Court or its proceedings may be held in Contempt of Court.

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.

 
The Commonwealth is present, your honour. @Vennefly will be representing the Commonwealth in this hearing, unless otherwise assigned.
 
Your Honor,

May it please the Court: I respectfully request permission to file a amicus brief on behalf of the Office of the President of the Senate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Franciscus said:
Your Honor,

May it please the Court: I respectfully request permission to file a amicus brief on behalf of the Office of the President of the Senate.
Click to expand...
From the Court Order Above:
"You may not apply prior to all briefs being submitted to this Court. (Essentially, when Pepe and 12700k file their briefs, then you may apply.)"
 
Muggy21 said:

Writ of Summons

@Kaiserin_ @12700k @Dartanboy @Pepecuu , is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of in re: S104/C475 [2025] FCR 124

In the interest of more efficient Courtroom proceedings, the Court will permit responses to motions without prior Court permission. The deadline for said motions shall be 48 hours.

Furthermore, in obedience with Rule 1.4, parties are advised that engaging in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of this Court or its proceedings may be held in Contempt of Court.

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...
I am present, your honor.
 
Muggy21 said:

Writ of Summons

@Kaiserin_ @12700k @Dartanboy @Pepecuu , is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of in re: S104/C475 [2025] FCR 124

In the interest of more efficient Courtroom proceedings, the Court will permit responses to motions without prior Court permission. The deadline for said motions shall be 48 hours.

Furthermore, in obedience with Rule 1.4, parties are advised that engaging in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of this Court or its proceedings may be held in Contempt of Court.

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...
Present on behalf of 12700k, your honor.
 
All parties present!

Initial Brief as described in my Order is due on 11/24/25 @ 10pm.
If you want an extension, just ask!
 
Your Honour,

I respectfully notify the Court of my intention to request permission to submit a short explanatory brief regarding my role as Public Defender in Pepecuu v MattTheSavvy [2025] FCR 100, specifically concerning the negotiation and structure of the settlement agreement adopted by the Court.

I wish to clarify that this request is not made as an application for amicus curiae status, nor as a party’s brief. Rather, I seek leave solely to provide limited context to assist the Court’s understanding of the circumstances surrounding the settlement and the reasoning behind the terms that were proposed.
 
ToadKing said:
Your Honour,

I respectfully notify the Court of my intention to request permission to submit a short explanatory brief regarding my role as Public Defender in Pepecuu v MattTheSavvy [2025] FCR 100, specifically concerning the negotiation and structure of the settlement agreement adopted by the Court.

I wish to clarify that this request is not made as an application for amicus curiae status, nor as a party’s brief. Rather, I seek leave solely to provide limited context to assist the Court’s understanding of the circumstances surrounding the settlement and the reasoning behind the terms that were proposed.
Click to expand...
Granted.

Please title your brief as to distinguish from a party brief.
Due Date: 11/24/25 @ 10pm.
 

Brief


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
EXPLANATORY BRIEF
RE: Settlement Negotiations in Pepecuu v. MattTheSavvy [2025] FCR 100

I respectfully submit this explanatory brief, as authorised by the Court's Order, to provide context regarding my role in negotiating the settlement agreement adopted in [2025] FCR 100.

I. BACKGROUND​

I was appointed as Public Defender to represent the Defendant, MattTheSavvy, on 16 October 2025, in [2025] FCR 100. At the time of my appointment, the Defendant had been offline for nearly two months and was unable to provide instructions or participate in their own defence. Given this circumstance, I undertook my duties with the objective of securing the most equitable outcome possible under the circumstances, while protecting the Defendant's interests to the extent practicable.

​

II. THE SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATION PROCESS​

Upon reviewing the case, I recognised and assessed that:
  1. The Defendant had violated the terms of the mortgage contract by transferring collateral (Plot C307) to a third party (the DCT) without the Plaintiff's consent, albeit through the DCT's plot eviction policy rather than voluntary action;
  2. The Plaintiff's original Prayer for Relief sought $123,750.00 in compensatory damages, $61,875.00 in punitive damages, $55,687.50 in legal fees, and a Court Order mandating transfer of C305 and C307;
  3. The Defendant's prolonged absence made meaningful defence or negotiation on their behalf extremely difficult;
  4. The Defendant's available assets were insufficient to satisfy the full monetary demands.
In good faith, I approached the Plaintiff to negotiate a settlement that would:
  • Provide meaningful compensation to the wronged party;
  • Eliminate the disproportionate punitive damages request of $61,875.00, which I believed did not meet the threshold of "outrageous conduct" given the Defendant's mere absence rather than malicious behaviour;
  • Adjust the compensatory and legal fee awards to reflect the Defendant's actual available funds ($50,365.65 and $15,109.70, respectively);
  • Secure the transfer of C305 as originally requested.
  • Propose liquidation of the Defendant's remaining properties (s104 and c745) through DCT eviction and auction proceedings, with proceeds directed to the Plaintiff.

​

III. CRITICAL OVERSIGHT​

I candidly acknowledge to this Court that I was not aware, at the time of proposing the settlement terms, that properties s104 and c745 were subject to an emergency injunction in the pending matter of 12700k v. MattTheSavvy [2025] FCR 89.

This oversight was entirely unintentional. In my review of the case and in formulating a settlement proposal, I failed to conduct a comprehensive search for other pending litigation involving the Defendant's properties. Had I been aware of the existing injunction, I would never have included these properties in the settlement proposal.

​

IV. REASONING BEHIND THE PROPOSED LIQUIDATION​

My decision to propose liquidation of s104 and c745 (rather than direct transfer) was motivated by several factors:
  1. The Plaintiff's original Prayer for Relief specifically requested transfer of only C305 and C307 - not s104 or c745. I did not believe it was appropriate to add these properties to the transfer order;
  2. Given the Defendant's inability to pay the full remaining loan amount, I sought a mechanism to provide additional compensation to the Plaintiff while ensuring an orderly, supervised process through the DCT;
  3. Liquidation through auction would potentially realise fair market value for the properties, with any surplus (however unlikely) theoretically available to the Defendant, whereas direct transfer would provide no such possibility;
  4. With the Defendant absent and unable to satisfy the judgment, auction proceedings offered a practical path to partial satisfaction of the debt.
I emphasize that this proposal was made in good faith and with the intention of serving both parties' interests under difficult circumstances.

​

V. IMPACT ON CURRENT PROCEEDINGS​

I understand that the Court now faces a conflict between its Orders in [2025] FCR 100 and [2025] FCR 89, and that this administrative hearing has been convened to provide equitable relief. I submit this brief not to advocate for any particular outcome, but to ensure the Court has complete context regarding how the settlement terms came to include the disputed properties.

The inclusion of s104 and c745 in the settlement was the result of my oversight as counsel, not any intention by either party to circumvent existing injunctions or interfere with the rights of other creditors. Both the Plaintiff and I negotiated in good faith.

​

VI. CONCLUSION​

I respectfully submit this explanation to assist the Court in understanding the circumstances that led to the current conflict. I take full responsibility for the oversight regarding the injunction on properties s104 and c745, and I hope this context aids the Court in fashioning an equitable resolution that honours the rights of all parties involved.

I remain available should the Court have any other questions.

 
Your honor, may I have an extension until Monday evening (Central Time) due to IRL circumstances?

(I'm not sure how many hours that is due to timezones - it might not even be an extension at all)
 
Dartanboy said:
Your honor, may I have an extension until Monday evening (Central Time) due to IRL circumstances?

(I'm not sure how many hours that is due to timezones - it might not even be an extension at all)
Click to expand...

The deadline is Monday at 10pm lol

I'll extend deadline to all parties to Tuesday at 5pm EST. (11/25/25 @ 5pm EST)
 

Brief


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
BRIEF

WHY 12700K SHOULD RECEIVE BOTH PLOTS IN QUESTION
1. The initial legal action was taken by 12700k on August 24, 2025 (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - 12700k v. MattTheSavvy [2025] FCR 89).

WHY PEPECUU SHOULD RECEIVE NEITHER PLOT AND NO COMPENSATION FOR THEM
1. Pepeccu's case came more than a month after 12700k's, on October 1, 2025 (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - Pepecuu v MattTheSavvy [2025] FCR 100).
2. The verdict in Pepeccu's case was in direct violation of the Emergency Injunction in 12700k's pre-existing case.

REASONS THAT FIT INTO BOTH CATEGORIES
1. According to Pepeccu's case, the liquidation of the plots are to pay MattTheSavvy's debts to Pepeccu, however, the plots are not actually owned by MattTheSavvy, rather they are de jure owned by 12700k by virtue of them existing as collateral in a pre-existing contract with 12700k, and that contract was breached by MattTheSavvy.

Again, although in-game, MattTheSavvy was incorrectly listed as the owner of the plots, they were not owned by him and cannot be used to pay off his debts.

Thank you, your honor.

 
Party briefs received.

The Court will wait 48 Hours for any motions/objections/applications for briefs.
 
Court is in recess pending verdict.
 
Good evening, your honor.

Please forgive my informal message, but I'm not sure what it would qualify as.

I don't believe Pepeccu or their counsel has made a brief?
 
Dartanboy said:
Good evening, your honor.

Please forgive my informal message, but I'm not sure what it would qualify as.

I don't believe Pepeccu or their counsel has made a brief?
Click to expand...

The Court offered parties 11 days to respond. If they chose not to, the Court won't hear their perspective, that's all.
 
Your honour,

The Commonwealth was under the impression that its brief was to be offered after both party briefs had been received, but I don't believe an explicit indication that it was now the Commonwealth's time to present its arguments was ever given.

If one of your orders has been misinterpreted, do not allow us to stall proceedings any longer. However, if the Court is still interested in hearing the Commonwealth's stance, I do believe we already had a brief in the works.

Apologies for the confusion - this is a brand new procedure for all involved, after all.
 
Kaiserin_ said:
Your honour,

The Commonwealth was under the impression that its brief was to be offered after both party briefs had been received, but I don't believe an explicit indication that it was now the Commonwealth's time to present its arguments was ever given.

If one of your orders has been misinterpreted, do not allow us to stall proceedings any longer. However, if the Court is still interested in hearing the Commonwealth's stance, I do believe we already had a brief in the works.

Apologies for the confusion - this is a brand new procedure for all involved, after all.
Click to expand...

If the CW has started a draft, I'll gladly accept it. You'll have 48 Hours to respond, I won't grant extensions.
 

Brief


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
BRIEF

Your honor,

The Commonwealth, while not being party to any of the cases in discussion today, provides the following brief regarding the status of s104 and c745.


At the time of the FCR 100 ruling, s104 and c745 were under emergency injunction.
Within the court rules and procedures there are not clear guidelines on what the courts should do in a case of contradictory orders. However, one could assume that an older order would supersede a contradictory newer order. Both of the plots in question were under emergency injunction at the time of the FCR 100 ruling. Within this assumed framework, it was improper for the Honorable Judge Amityblamity to order the DCT to evict and auction s104 and c745, in direct violation of the Honorable Judge Ko’s emergency injunction.

MattTheSavvy, at the time of these proceedings, was essentially insolvent.
Therefore, it would be expected that two parties would enter into bankruptcy proceedings over MattTheSavvy’s estate. However, at the time of both of these trials, Redmont did not have bankruptcy law, which severely lessens the potential claim that President Pepecuu has on these properties.

S104 and c745 were collateral in a Mortgage agreement.
This contract was entered into on 8/12/25 by MattTheSavvy and 12700k, and specifically names s104 and c745 as security for the loan, which in the case of a default would become the property of the Lender (12700k). While Redmont does not have explicitly outlined regulation for property liens, this is a valid contract as ruled in FCR 89. Therefore by the terms of this contract, s104 and c745 are the property of 12700k.

While President Pepecuu had also entered into a mortgage agreement with MattTheSavvy, neither s104 or c745 were named as collateral. The Commonwealth is sensitive to the President’s claim over the assets of MattTheSavvy, but the contract entered into by 12700k and MattTheSavvy did take place before the contract between President Pepecuu and MattTheSavvy. 12700k therefore has a greater claim to his assets.

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 fifth day of December 2025.

 
Thank you, the Court will enter recess pending verdict.
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Verdict - in re: S104/C745 [2025] FCR 124



1. SUMMARY OF CONTROVERSY
On order of this Court, parties were summoned to settle the discrepancy in the rulings of this Court in relation to S104 and C745 . The Federal Court in the "Initial Cases" awarded possession of S104 and C74 to both parties.

2. FINDINGS OF FACT
1) The Hon. Judge AmityBlamity awarded S104/C745 to Pepecuu on Oct 17th, 2025.
2) The Hon. Judge Ameslap awarded S104/C745 to 12700k on Nov 1st, 2025.
3)In obedience to this Court, DHS transferred $65,475.35 to Pepecuu on October 19th, 2025 (COURT-1). The only outstanding portion of FCR 89's ruling is the auction of S104 and C475.
4) On Nov 1st, 2025, DHS attempted to collect the judgment against Debtor in the amount of $325,000.
5) As of November 30th, 2025, the Court is aware of $325,000 outstanding owed by Debtor.



3. OPINION OF THE COURT

In this interpleader action, the Federal Court wishes to resolve a conflict of its orders in the initial cases. To proceed with adjudication, the Court must stress that this is not an appeal; As a judge, I'm not entitled to disregard the orders of this Court at my whim, there must exist a legal basis. For an order of this Court to be set aside by this Court, it must be void ab initio, void from inception. For the above action, the verdict issued by the Hon. Judge AmityBlamity occurred within the injunction period issued by the Hon. Judge Ko531. Since the injunction was a lawful exercise of power under the Judicial Standards Act, that order can't be countermanded unless void at inception. The Court see no lawful reason why Judge Ko's order would be void. For that reason, Judge Amity misapprehended her authority in overriding an otherwise lawful injunction; The part of that verdict permitting the transfer of the properties is void as a matter of law.

As the Commonwealth points out in its brief, there was no bankruptcy act at the time of these suits being filed. For that reason, Pepecuu has no lawful interest in S104 and C745 for the purpose of collecting a debt. The buildings, although in DCT possession, are the property of MattTheSavvy. Likewise, the Court is not bound by the collateral clause of the mortgage agreement between 12700k and MattTheSavvy. 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. The Court grants possession to 12700k of S104 and C745 because a lawful order of this Court orders such transfer.

Lastly, the Commonwealth is immune from actions attempting to pseudo-appeal a judicial action. For the initial cases in this Complaint, parties may move to create an Administrative Hearing (such as this) or file an appeal before the Supreme Court. For this reason, Pepecuu v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 116 and 12700k v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 110 are dismissed with prejudice.


Therefore the Court rules as follows:

  1. Pending Cases [2025] FCR 116 and [2025] FCR 110 are dismissed with prejudice.
  2. S104 and C745 shall be transferred to 12700k.
  3. In the interest of justice, the evictions against S104 and C745 are stayed for a period of 10 days ending on December 16th, 2025 at 5:00pm. The DCT may file a new eviction against these properties in line with current procedures for any lawful reason.

So ordered,
Judge Mug

 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top