Appeal: Accepted INTERLOCUTORY MasterCaelen v. Hon. Magistrate Dr_Eksplosive [2026] FCR 14

[Franciscus]

Username: Multiman155

I am representing a client

Who is your Client?: MasterCaelen

File(s) attached

What Case are you Appealing?: BurgersBeware v. Modzy & Spyders_Crypt [2026] DCR 23

Link to the Original Case: Lawsuit: Pending - BurgersBeware v. Modzy & Spyders_Crypt [2026] DCR 23

Basis for Appeal: INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL - See Brief Below

Supporting Evidence: See Brief Below

 

[Franciscus]

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT​

INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL​

MasterCaelen,
Appellant

v.

Hon. Magistrate Dr_Eksplosive
Appellee​

SUMMARY

In BurgersBeware v. Modzy & Spyders_Crypt [2026] DCR 23, the District Court has issued an Emergency Injunction effectively freezing $6 million worth of the Appellant's rightful assets, even as the Appellant is not a party to that case. The Emergency Injunction was sought by the Plaintiff to "the loss of any meaningful ability to collect on a final judgment due to dissipation of assets during litigation", and the Plaintiff sought a total of $76,500 in damages.

This Emergency Injunction is greatly disproportionate to the harm caused, exceeds the jursidiction of the District Court, and causes more harm to Appellee than it prevents for the underlying case's Plaintiff. Additionally, as the Appellant is not a named party to the underlying case, and has not been summoned thereto, the Appellant has no way to challenge this ruling in the District Court. Appellant alleges that the District Court erred at Common Law and acted unconstitutionally, causing immediate harm to the Plaintiff that impact the fairness and accuracy of the underlying case, and for which waiting until a final judgement in the underlying case would only worsen existing conditions. The Appellant thus appeals on an interlocutory basis and prays that the Federal Court intervene to release the Appellant from the Emergency Injunction on an emergency basis.​

I. Factual and Legal Background​

I.I. The underlying case, and the emergency injunction​

On 19 February, BurgersBeware v. Modzy & Spyders_Crypt [2026] DCR 23 ("the Underlying Case") was filed. In the Underlying Case, BurgersBeware was listed as Plaintiff (hereafter "Underlying Case Plaintiff"), Modzy was listed as "First Defendant", and Spyders_Crypt was listed as "Second Defendant". Appellant was not named as a party, ([2026] DCR 23, Post No. 1). When summonses to Defendants were issued, Appellant was not summonsed to the case ([2026] DCR 23, Post No. 3).

Subsequent to filing the case itself, Underlying Case Plaintiff's counsel had filed a Motion for Emergency Injunction that explicitly naming this Appellant as a "relief defendant" ([2026] DCR 23, Post No. 2). The injunction sought, among other items:

1. to prohibit Appellant "from transferring, selling, gifting, encumbering, laundering, or otherwise disposing of liquid cash and transferable assets"
2. to require Appellant "to provide a prompt accounting identifying bank balances, liquid cash, significant item reserves, shares, and real property sufficient to implement the injunction"
3. To have the Court "impose a constructive trust over the assets transferred from the First Defendant to MasterCaelen"

In all this, the Underlying Case Plaintiff explicitly asked for "only preservation of assets up to an amount equal to or exceeding the Prayer for Relief" in a manner "consistent with the 'freeze until the value exceeds the prayer for relief' framework previously accepted and granted in [2022] FCR 47". The harm the Underlying Case Plaintiff sought to prevent was "the loss of any meaningful ability to collect on a final judgment due to dissipation of assets during litigation".

I.I.I. The District Court granted an extremely overbroad Emergency Injunction​

The District Court Granted an Emergency Injunction ([2026] DCR 23, Post No. 4). Specifically, the District Court ordered the Department of Homeland Security to:

- Freeze and seize the assets of Spyders_Crypt to avoid harm to pending adjudication.
- Freeze and seize the assets of Modzy_ to avoid harm to pending adjudication.
- To identify, then freeze and seize the assets formerly belonging to Modzy_ that was transfered to one MasterCaelen, to avoid any disposal of assets or otherwise any form of tampering with any pending adjudication.

For the duration of this case, or until otherwise ordered by the presiding officer.

This was extremely broad. For the third of these items, the District Court froze all assets transferred by Modzy_ to MasterCaelen. The Underlying Case Plaintiff's exhibit ([2026] DCR 23, Post No. 2, Exhibit P-001) indicates that these frozen assets were worth in excess of $6 million, even as the Underlying Case Plaintiff sought a mere $76,500.00 in damages ([2026] DCR 23, Post No. 1, Prayer for Relief No. G).

I.II. Underlying Case Plaintiff made several provably false factual claims in support of the Emergency Injunction, but the Appellant can't directly challenge this in the District Court​

Why did Underlying Case Plaintiff seek this injunction? Underlying Case Plaintiff repeatedly alleged that funds were transferred from the First Defendant to the Appellant after the time of their lawsuit's filing (or at least after when the First Defendant was aware that a lawsuit was incoming)

1. that Appellant had received assets from the First Defendant in the underlying case in a manner "contemporaneous with the filing of [the Underlying ]lawsuit and at a time when the First Defendant was aware of the pending litigation" (emphasis mine);
2. that "MasterCaelen now holds assets that were part of the First Defendant's estate at the time of filing and that are directly traceable to the First Defendant" (emphasis mine);
3. that frozen "assets now held by Relief Defendant MasterCaelen []are directly traceable to the First Defendant's pre-litigation estate" (emphasis mine);

There's just one problem with these contentions - the Underlying Case Plaintiff got the timeline plainly wrong.

I.II.I. A simple check of open-source materials indicates that Underlying Case Plaintiff mislead the Court with their proposed timeline​

Among the frustrations of the Appellant is that the factual record in the underlying case seems to have confused the Court into thinking that the assets were transferred from Modzy_ to the appellant after or during the alleged chicken spawning incident that spurred the underlying case. But upon review of open source material, the transfer of assets occurred well before the alleged incident. Modzy_ announced the transfer of assets at 12:38 A.M. Eastern Standard Time on 18 February 2026 (Exhibit A-002), and a news report (Exhibit A-001) dated 9:13 P.M. Eastern Standard Time on the same day indicated that the alleged chicken spawning incident would have been "early this evening" on that day. The Underling Case was filed at 2:00 A.M. EST on 19 February 2026.

A corrected timeline, thus, proceeds as follows:

• Feb 18, 12:03 A.M. EST (Feb 17, 11:03 P.M. CST in Exhibit A-004): Modzy_ communicates to Appellant that the transaction had been completed
• Feb 18, 12:38 A.M. EST: Modzy_ publicly indicates that he had transferred assets to MasterCaelen (see: Exhibit A-002)
• Feb 18, 9:13 P.M.: CNN reports that "Early this evening, a player by the name of Modzy_ decided to use a large number of chicken eggs to flood spawn with dozens of baby chickens.")
• Feb 19, 2:00 A.M.: the Underlying Case was filed.

Knowing this, let's revisit the timeline claims made by Underlying Case Plaintiff as laid out in Section I.II:

1. that Appellant had received assets from the First Defendant in the underlying case in a manner "contemporaneous with the filing of [the Underlying ]lawsuit and at a time when the First Defendant was aware of the pending litigation" (emphasis mine);
2. that "MasterCaelen now holds assets that were part of the First Defendant's estate at the time of filing and that are directly traceable to the First Defendant" (emphasis mine);
3. that frozen "assets now held by Relief Defendant MasterCaelen []are directly traceable to the First Defendant's pre-litigation estate" (emphasis mine);

1. Was the receipt of assets contemporaneous with the filing of the underlying lawsuit, and was Modzy_ aware of the pending litigation at the time he transferred assets? No. Even if the evening were to have begun at 5:00 P.M. Eastern Time from the perspective of the CNN writer, Modzy_ would have transferred assets to MasterCaelen about 17 hours prior.
2. Were the assets publicly reported to have been transferred to MasterCaelen "part of the First Defendant's estate at the time of filing" of the underlying case? Also no. They were transferred away well before the alleged chicken spawning incident, and before any tort alleged in the Underlying Case is alleged to have occurred.
3. Were the assets transferred to MasterCaelen part of the "pre-litigation estate" of Modzy? No, they were Caelen's.

This is all wonderful for the Appellant, and the Appellant would be happy to present this in the District Court and correct the record. Unfortunately, there is something stopping him from doing so - nobody actually named this appellant as a party to that case, so Appellant has not been summoned, and the Courts generally prevent people like Appellant from unilaterally intervening when people like Appellant has not been summoned.

I.II.II. Having not been summoned nor named as a party, appellant has had no means by which to challenge this emergency injunction in the District Court​

Individuals generally may not speak in nor file motions in Court threads unless summoned, and "Speaking in cases that you have not been summoned to has been held to automatically be contemptible" ([2025] FCR 119 - Contempt of Court Charge - Appeal, Verdict, Section II). This has even been the case when the rights of individuals may be implicated in a case to which they are not a party (see: Dusty_3 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] SCR 8, Post No. 29, finding xEndeavour in Contempt of Court).

As such, absent a summons, appellant may not file motions, such as a motion to reconsider, in the underlying case. This deprives the Appellant of the ability to challenge the Emergency Injunction directly in the District Court.

I.III. Appellant is suffering immediate harm as a result of the Emergency Injunction granted in the Underlying Case​

This freeze has effectively halted the Appellant's business operations and caused significant financial damage to both Appellant and various third-parties.

A loan was taken out from Appeallant's bank, which temporarily reduced that bank's available liquidity and left it short on funds needed to cover all customer deposits. To correct this and restore stability (20M+), appellant had been actively working to sell plots to increase liquidity. However, the freeze has prevented appellant from doing so, potentially costing appellant high-value buyers and delaying appellant's ability to fully cover the loaned funds.

In addition, Appellant's companies (Vindren Holdings and Kantonic Bank; see Exhibit A-005 for a full list) have been forced to pause operations. Some of these firms were quite developed, including Kantonic (in-game /db entity for the Kantonic bank is "RKB"; see, Exhibits A-006 through A-009 for more supporting details). Customers are currently unable to deposit or withdraw funds, which directly impacts other players who rely on Appellant's bank to store and manage their money.

As a result, the Emergency Injunction risks businesses being unable to pay employees or cover operating costs. This not only harms those business, but also risks permanent damage to our reputation and risks losing long-term clients, costing us millions in potential revenue.

Vindren Holdings’ entire business model revolves around trading plots and buying/selling assets. With trading frozen, our core operations are completely shut down. Appellant and his firms are suffering substantial financial losses over a case that they are not so much as able to defend themselves in.

II. Grounds for Interlocutory Appeal​

Under the Modern Judicial Standards Act, an appellant "may petition for an interlocutory appeal to the relevant higher court when a clear error of law occurs during proceedings that materially biases the outcome of the lower court case". The Act also sets out a three-part test for how to handle interlocutory appeals.

The following conditions must be met for an interlocutory appeal to be considered:
(a) The alleged error constitutes a significant legal mistake, not merely a disagreement with the lower court's interpretation;
(b) The error substantially impacts the fairness or accuracy of the ongoing proceedings; and
(c) Delaying resolution until a final judgment would cause irreparable harm.

As shown below, the District Court made significant legal mistakes in issuing the Emergency Injunction out-of-line with statute and precedent, failing to adhere to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Section 35 of the Constitution, and exceeding constitutional limits to the District Court's jurisdiction. These errors impacted the fairness of the ongoing proceeding inasmuch as the Appellant is totally denied the ability to respond to them for lack of summons and inasmuch as Appellant is unable to correct the factual record. The Injunction will furthermore cause irreparable harm to the Appellant (and various third parties), as the freezing wide swaths of the Appellant's assets that have been invested in businesses will cause permanent reputational harm and worsening of conditions for the Appellant the longer that the injunction remains in force.

II.I. The District Court committed significant legal mistakes in granting the Emergency Injunction​

At issue in this appeal is whether or not the Emergency Injunction in the Underlying Case, as granted by the District Court, was caused by significant legal mistakes. As "[w]hen reviewing this case, the most important question needing to answered first is what law applies and where," (End v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 31), we first examine the underlying law around Emergency Injunctions.

II.I.I. Legal Error 1: The Emergency Injunction causes more harm than it prevents, violating the Common Law​

II.I.I.I. Emergency Injunctions must be granted to prevent harm, not cause harm
Under Statute, emergency Injunctions are injunctions "that are issued before the court has tried a case to prevent harm" (Judicial Standards Act, Section 9(1)(b)). The Courts have recognized in their precedent that the purpose of an emergency injunction is to be a "preventative measure against harm" (dodrio3 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] SCR 4, Post No. 2). But how does the Court determine whether issuing an Emergency Injunction might "prevent harm"?

The Supreme Court has laid out that the harm done by granting an emergency injunction must not be greater than the harm prevented by granting it (see: ToadKing v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] SCR 18, Post No. 5, "Supreme Court will not be granting an emergency injunction... the harm done by removing one third of all Judges for perhaps a month or more is far greater than allowing her to continue her work"), as has the Federal Court (see: RaiTheGuy v. Department of Commerce [2025] FCR 29, Post No. 3, "The goal of preventing harm for other bidders does not presently outweigh the harm caused by shutting down the mystery box program"). The Federal Court has also laid out that Emergency Injunctions may not generally bring about "preemptive action [that] would undermine the principle of a fair trial and due process" (Redmont Bar Association (RBA) v. AlexanderLove [2024] FCR 117, Post No. 9; ibid, Post No. 61, re-affirming on Motion to recondiser).

In other words, Emergency Injunctions are granted to prevent harm, but (1) the Court must also consider the harm caused by the granting of the Emergency Injunction; (2) the Court must not grant an emergency injunction when the harm caused by granting it exceeds the harm prevented by granting it; and (3) the Court must not violate the principles of fair trial and due process when granting an Emergency Injunction.

Now that this is settled, let's turn to whether the District Court adhered to this framework.

II.I.I.II. The harm caused by freezing and seizing ~$6 million worth of appellant's assets is in gross excess of the harm prevented by protecting the Underlying Case Plaintiff's ability to collect $76,500.

The Underlying Case Plaintiff, in seeking an emergency injunction, sought to prevent "the loss of any meaningful ability to collect on a final judgment due to dissipation of assets during litigation" ([2026] DCR 23, Post No. 2). The Underlying Case Plaintiff's prayers for relief, if all granted in full, would grant the Plaintiff a total of "$76,500.00" ([2026] DCR 23, Post No. 1, Prayer for Relief No. G).

As discusses supra, the District Court ordered the Department of Homeland Security "[t]o identify, then freeze and seize the assets formerly belonging to Modzy_ that was transfered to one MasterCaelen, to avoid any disposal of assets or otherwise any form of tampering with any pending adjudication" ([2026] DCR 23, Post No. 4). The Underlying Case Plaintiff had presented the Court with evidence that the value of these assets exceeded $6 million ([2026] DCR 23, Post No. 2, Exhibit P-001).

Seizing $6 million worth of assets is extraordinary and plainly nonsensical to secure the Underlying Case Plaintiff's ability to collect on a potential relief of $76,500. It beggars belief that the seizure of ~80 times the amount of assets sought by the Underlying Case Plaintiff would plausibly be required ensure that the Underlying Case Plaintiff receives full payment should they succeed on all their claims. This was an extreme overreach by the District Court, as such a broad and sweeping seizure was not necessary to prevent the harm.

Emergency Injunctions must be issued to prevent harm, not cause it. As this Emergency Injunction caused more harm than it prevented, the District Court plainly erred.

II.I.II. Legal Error 2: The Emergency Injunction's sweeping scope of seizure constitutes unreasonable seizure under Const. 35(15)​

Having established that it was not necessary to seize the whole of assets transferred from Modzy_ to the Appellant in order to protect the Underlying Case Plaintiff (see II.I.I and subsections thereof), we now turn to the question of whether or not this seizure ordered by the Court was unconstitutional.

The Redmont Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights set out within it, subject only to "reasonable limits prescribed by law that are justified in a free and democratic society" (Const. 35). Among these rights is "the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure" (Const. 35(15)).

The Emergency Injunction seized assets from the Appellant which the Underlying Case Plaintiff represented as being at or in excess of $6 million ([2026] DCR 23, Post No. 2, Section (a), describing assets and including P-001; [2026] DCR 23, Post No. 4, granting injunction). The Underlying Case Plaintiff communicated that the very reason for seizing assets would be to prevent asset flight, but one cannot reasonably conclude that the seizure of ~80 times the amount of assets sought by the Underlying Case Plaintiff as prayers for relief in the Underlying Case would be reasonably tailored in that manner.

The District Court could have limited the seizure to be only for assets up to $76,500 from among the defendants, fully bonding the amount sought in prayers for relief. It went so far beyond that point that we are no longer in reasonable territoriy. Doing so was an error of law by the District Court

II.I.III. Legal Error 3: The District Court lacks constitutional jurisdiction to freeze $6 million in assets​

We must examine whether the District Court erred on jurisdictional grounds when freezing all of the Appellant's assets acquired from Modzy_.

Jurisdiction for the District Court is principally laid out in the 15th and 16th Sections of Constitution. The purpose of the District Court is to " hear[] ‌all‌ ‌minor‌ ‌civil‌ ‌and‌ ‌criminal‌ ‌disputes‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌first‌ ‌instance" (Const. 15). Specifically, minor civil cases are those "whose‌ ‌value‌ ‌does‌ ‌not‌ ‌exceed‌ more than $120,000 dollars" (Const. 16).

The Underlying Case Plaintiff represented the assets transferred from Modzy_ to the Appellant as being at or in excess of $6 million ([2026] DCR 23, Post No. 2, Section (a), describing assets and including P-001 therein). Why then, can the District Court issue an emergency injunction that would ensnare these assets?

Our answer is that it cannot. The Constitution empowers the Federal Court with original jurisdiction over "Major ‌civil‌ ‌cases‌ ‌whose‌ ‌value‌ exceeds $120,000 dollars... and [a]ny cases of significance that do not fit within the established bounds of court jurisdictions" (Const. 18(c-d)). If there were a court with proper jurisdiction to issue such an Emergency Injunction, it would be the Federal Court, not the District Court.

Thus, the District Court committed an error of law in issuing the Emergency Injunction without constitutional jurisdiction to do so.

II.I.IV. Legal Error 4: The District Court failed to provide the Appellant an opportunity to be heard, violating Const. 35(9) and Const. 35(14)​

Next, we turn to whether or not the District Court violated Const. 35(9) and Const. 35(14) in enjoining their assets without providing the appellant an opportunity to be heard in the case.

Citizens in Redmont are afforded a "right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judicial Officer, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be confronted with the evidence against them, and to have the assistance of legally qualified counsel for their defence" (Const. 35(9)). Additionally, "[e]very citizen has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice" (Const. 35(14)).

As discussed supra in Section II.I.I.I, Emergency Injunctions may not generally bring about "preemptive action [that] would undermine the principle of a fair trial and due process" (Redmont Bar Association (RBA) v. AlexanderLove [2024] FCR 117, Post No. 9; ibid, Post No. 61, re-affirming on Motion to recondiser).

In this case, the Appellant was not a named party in the Complaint of the original case. The Underlying Case Plaintiff was not suing the Appellant. And, even so, the District Court froze assets in the possession of the appellant and ordered seizure of these assets from the Appellant without allowing the Appellant to present their own defense—not even after the Emergency Injunction was issued.

When an individual's rights are at jeopardy, that individual has a constitutional right to present their own defense at trial. This has been recognized by the Supreme Court in a criminal prosecution context (see: [2022] SCR 20 - Appeal Request, accepting an appeal when appellant "was criminally prosecuted without representation" in the context of a broader civil trial), but applies equally in a civil context. Crucially, in the appeal of [2022] SCR 20, the largest underlying crime in [2022] SCR 20 was a series of ticking Contempt of Court charges arising from alleged violations of an Emergency Injunctions that affected a party not summoned to the case. The appeal implicitly recognizes that people bound by Emergency Injunctions must be afforded a right to represent themself in Court.

In failing to issue a summons to the Appellant for defense of Appellant's rights, the District Court has effectively denied the ability of the Appellant to have counsel file motions on their behalf in that case. This has constructively deprived Appellant of a right to fair trial, denied Appellant the ability to confront evidence against them in the District Court, and left the Appellant with no means by which to get the District Court to reconsider its decision other than this appeal. It has deprived the Appellant of the security of their person and possessions without due process.

Every citizen must have the ability to contest legal claims made that would negatively impact them. This injunction, without a summons to Appellant, thus undermines the principle of a fair trial and due process guaranteed under the Charter and recognized by Supreme Court precedent. This error must be reversed.

II.II. The legal errors substantially impacted the fairness and accuracy of the Underlying Case's proceedings​

The four legal errors in issuing the emergency injunction in the Underlying case have caused the proceedings to become unfair towards the Appellant, and have damaged the accuracy of the proceedings. This includes unfairness due to deprivation of due process and various other constitutional rights, as well as inaccuracies in the trial record presently left unrefuted by this Appellant who lacks the ability to introduce evidence and make factual representations in their own defense.

II.II.I. Fundamental fairness is compromised by the District Court's issuance of an Emergency Injunction that violates the constitution, causes more harm than it prevents, and/or falls outside of the District Court's jurisdiction, all while the District Court has not provided the Appellant an opportunity to be heard​

Each and every legal error identified this appeal impacts fundamental fairness. The District Court acted unfairly in issuing a sweeping emergency injunction that seizes ~80 times more than is necessary for securing the Underlying Case Plaintiff's ability to collect, causing constitutional injury to Appellant in multiple ways, exceeding jurisdictional limits, and in all this failing to invite the Appellant to be heard.

The ongoing procedings are prejudiced by this, inasmuch as there is no way at present for this Appellant to intervene on his own behalf, to present novel arguments, to engage in discovery, and to answer factual allegations in his own right; absent a statutory general right or creation of a (not-in-existence) motion to intervene under the Court rules, there is no way to solve this except by relief from this Court.

II.II.II. Failing to provide the Appellant an opportunity to be heard has impacted the accuracy of the trial court's factual record​

As described supra in Section I.II et seq. there are numerous factual errors on the record in the District Court that may have affected the justification for the emergency injunction. These errors include several attestations as to the timing of the transfer of assets between the First Defendant and the Appellant made by the Underlying Case Plaintiff that appear to line up with neither public records nor the truth of the matter. To keep the matter short (see I.II et seq for the full analysis), the Underlying Case Plaintiff repeatedly represented to the Court that the transfer of assets to Appellant occurred during or after the alleged torts occurred, even as public records and the ultimate truth of the matter indicate that the Appellant received the materials over half-a-day before any alleged action contributing to the Underlying Case's Claims for relief occurred.

As such, the factual accuracy of the underlying proceeding suffers from the lack of the Appellant's participation, prejudicing the ongoing proceeding. If the District Court were to make factual conclusions that affect the Appellant without the Appellant's participation, and if these errors of fact were to be left uncorrected, a Court judgement in finding the facts to be as alleged by the Underlying Case Plaintiff would risk irreparable harm.

II.III. Delaying resolution until final judgement in the underlying case would irreparably harm the Appellant​

Appellant is, at present, unable to intervene in the District Court proceedings, despite appellant's assets being indefinitely seized. In the interim, the Appellant is simply subject to the injunction, which threatens to essentially freeze a tax-exempt bank he has worked very hard to get to the market (Kantonic, in-game as RKB), freeze a ginormous chunk of the Appeallant's assets, and subject the Appellant to continuous constitutional injury in doing so.

Cases can take many months from inception to completions—YeetGlazer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 76 was filed on 3 August 2025 and was completed over 6 months later on 8 February 2026—and we have no crystal ball that lets us to know how long the Underlying Case will take. Every additional day that this seizure goes on is additional harm that the Appellant suffers, and indefinite extension of constitutional harm (see supra at Sections II.I.II, II.I.II and II.I.IV) is plainly irreparable. And there is no way to repair the damage that will be done if the whole Underlying Case proceeds without the ability for the Appellant to be heard; the exclusion from the case until after final judgement would be the cause of harm itself.

II.IV. Conclusion​

The District Court committed four major legal errors in the issuance of the Emergency Injunction:

1. The extreme breadth Emergency Injunction caused substantially more harm to the Appellant than harm to the Underlying Case Plaintiff it prevented (and more harm than was necessary to secure the rights of the Underlying Case Plaintiff), in violation of the Common Law;
2. The Emergency Injunction's sweeping seizure of $6 million+ of assets constitutes unreasonable seizure under Const. 35(15) when the purported reason for the seizure was to ensure that the Underlying case Plaintiff could collect $76,500 in the case that Underlying Case Plaintiff were to have won the case;
3. The District Court exceeded its jurisdiction granted under Sectiosn 15-16 of the Constitution by freezing $6 million+ in assets;
4. In all of this, the District Court failed to provide the Appellant an opportunity to be heard, violating the Appellant's ninth and fourteenth Charter Rights.

These legal errors impacted the fairness of the underlying proceeding as well as the factual accuracy thereof, as this Appellant has no means by which to intervene in the District Court to contest each of these errors. And Delaying resolution until final judgement would only compound the issues and cause more harm to the Appellant.

Therefore, this interlocutory appeal should be granted, and the Federal Court should provide relief to the Appellant.

III. Prayer for Relief​

1. Declaratory Relief. The Appellant Prays that the Federal Court declare:
   1. That the District Court's Emergency Injunction to be overbroad and cause more harm to the Appellant than (a) is necessary for preventing harm to the Underlying Case Plaintiff, and (b) than would be prevented by issuing the Emergency Injunction in the first place;
   2. That the District Court's Emergency Injunction is unconstitutional under Section 35(15).
   3. That the District Court lacks jurisdiction to freeze assets in excess of the $120,000 limit for civil cases given in Const. 16.
   4. That the District Court's lack of summons to the Appellant, and consequent lack of the Appellant to be heard by the Court on the Emergency Injunction even after issuance thereof, breaches the fair trial and due process rights established by the text and penumbra of Const. 35(9) and Const. 35(14).
2. Injunctive Relief. The appellant Prays that the Federal Court enter an injunction to remediate the harms caused by the District Court, seeking that the FCR:
   1. Permanently enjoin enforcement of the District Court's Emergency Injunction as it pertains to the Appellant and remand the issue to the District Court for a new injunction in line with this Court's Declaratory Judgements.
   2. Order that any assets seized therefrom by the Commonwealth pursuant to the Emergency Injunction in the Underlying Case be returned to the Appellant as soon as practicable.
3. Other Relief. Any further equitable or monetary relief as the Federal Court may see fit to enter, including legal fees if applicable.

IV. Exhibits​

Spoiler: Exhibit A-001

Spoiler: Exhibit A-002

Spoiler: Exhibit A-003

BurgersBeware v. Modzy & Spyders_Crypt [2026] DCR 23
Archive link

Spoiler: Exhibit A-004

Spoiler: Exhibit A-005

Spoiler: Exhibit A-006

Kantonic

Archive URL: https://archive.is/SuyX3
PDF Copy: See Attached PDF whose title begins with Exhibit A-006

Spoiler: Exhibit A-007

Terms of Service - Kantonic

Archive URL: https://archive.is/tR76i
PDF Copy: See Attached PDF whose title begins with Exhibit A-007

Spoiler: Exhibit A-008

Tax Exempt Entities List
See attached PDF whose title begins with Exhibit A-008

Spoiler: Exhibit A-009

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Your Honor,

The Emergency Injunction in the case BurgersBeware v. Modzy & Spyders_Crypt [2026] DCR 23 is causing immediate and irreparable harm to the appellant in this case through the seizure of what that case's Plaintiff has described as $6 million worth of the Appellant's assets. This is actively prohibiting the Appellant from conducting business and is causing both active loss of enjoyment (in the opportunities that are being missed) and worsening of existing conditions (inasmuch as reputation damage may be sustained), as well as constitutional injury due to unreasonable seizure.

The Appellant has put forward a plausible case in the Appeal that the Emergency Injunction in [2026] DCR 23, as applied to Appellant, was granted through several errors of law. Appellant argues that the balance of equities would favor releasing the appellant from the Emergency Injunction at this time until this appeal is fully resolved.

Therefore, the Appellant requests the following Emergency Injunction be issued:

1. The Department of Homeland Security is Enjoined from enforcing against the Appellant the Emergency Injunction granted by the District Court at 9:55 A.M. on 3 March 2026, until such a time as this interlocutory appeal is fully handled;
2. The Emergency Injunction granted by the District Court at 9:55 A.M. on 3 March 2026 is stayed pending resolution of this appeal.

We pray to Your Honor for this swift Emergency Relief.

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Your Honor,

The Emergency Injunction in the case BurgersBeware v. Modzy & Spyders_Crypt [2026] DCR 23 is causing immediate and irreparable harm to the appellant in this case through the seizure of what that case's Plaintiff has described as $6 million worth of the Appellant's assets. This is actively prohibiting the Appellant from conducting business and is causing both active loss of enjoyment (in the opportunities that are being missed) and worsening of existing conditions (inasmuch as reputation damage may be sustained), as well as constitutional injury due to unreasonable seizure.

The Appellant has put forward a plausible case in the Appeal that the Emergency Injunction in [2026] DCR 23, as applied to Appellant, was granted through several errors of law. Appellant argues that the balance of equities would favor releasing the appellant from the Emergency Injunction at this time until this appeal is fully resolved.

Therefore, the Appellant requests the following Emergency Injunction be issued:

1. The Department of Homeland Security is Enjoined from enforcing against the Appellant the Emergency Injunction granted by the District Court at 9:55 A.M. on 3 March 2026, until such a time as this interlocutory appeal is fully handled;
2. The Emergency Injunction granted by the District Court at 9:55 A.M. on 3 March 2026 is stayed pending resolution of this appeal.

We pray to Your Honor for this swift Emergency Relief.

Granted. The EI of the District Court shall be suspended pending the adjudication of this appeal. The Court may issue a long-form order to this same effect later.

 

[Muggy21]

The Federal Court grants this appeal. It declines to dispose of the action without briefing in opposition.

Writ of Summons

@BurgersBeware is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of INTERLOCUTORY MasterCaelen v. Hon. Magistrate Dr_Eksplosive [2026] FCR 14

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.

 

[iToAsTyAX]

Parties representing BurgersBeware are present, your Honor.

 

[Muggy21]

Parties representing BurgersBeware are present, your Honor.

Cool, you have 72 Hours to provide a brief in opposition. Extensions will be granted.

 

[iToAsTyAX]

Your Honor, if it so pleases you may i ask a question in closed court regarding this stage of proceedings with the Appellants counsel present as he so wishes, ?

 

[iToAsTyAX]

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT​

RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO APPELLANT’S EMERGENCY INJUNCTION MOTION​

BurgersBeware,
Plaintiff [DCR 23 [2026]]
represented by: PvM2Max & ToAsTyAX

V.

MasterCaelen
(Appellant)​

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT​

In DCR 23, counsel representing BurgersBeware moved for an Emergency Injunction expressly capped to the Prayer for Relief: “freezing liquid cash and transferable assets … in an amount equal to or exceeding the Prayer for Relief” and “until the value of the frozen assets equals or exceeds the Prayer for Relief.” [§A EI DCR 23 [2026]]

A. Our Parties agree with the Appellant on a core point: the District Court’s executed Emergency Injunction ordering DHS to “freeze and seize” assets, including assets transferred to Appellant MasterCaelen, went materially beyond what the Plaintiff requested and is disproportionate, as it freezes/seizes assets grossly exceeding the Underlying Prayer for Relief ($76,500).

B. A party may petition for an interlocutory appeal to the relevant higher court when a clear error of law occurs during proceedings that materially biases the outcome of the lower court case - §3(1) Modern Judicial Standards Act
Where: "The alleged error constitutes a significant legal mistake, not merely a disagreement with the lower court's interpretation;"

C. The parties representing Burgersbeware posit that the "significant legal mistake" that brings grounds for this Interlocutory appeal was the blanket freezing and seizure of the Appellants assets, which, is unnecessary to protect the underlying prayer for relief.

D. However, the Appellant’s filing does not confine itself purely to the legal mechanics of the Interlocutory Appeal. The Appellant’s submissions also dispute and recharacterize the Underlying Plaintiff’s factual narrative, particularly the asserted timing, intent, and purpose of the alleged asset transfers, and the framing of dissipation risk, despite the fact that the District Court has not tried the merits or entered any findings of fact in DCR 23.

E. We argue, the only live interlocutory issue posed properly before this Court is the legal error embedded in the District Court’s Emergency Injunction, specifically, that the District Court granted a blanket freeze and seize order outside of its jurisdiction, as the value of the freeze exceeds $120,000, and without adopting the Plaintiff’s expressly requested cap (“freeze only until the value equals or exceeds the Prayer for Relief”), as quoted by the Appellant in §1.1. of their opening statement.

F. Your Honor has granted the Appellants motion to pause the Emergency Injunction in DCR 23 [2026], on the basis that the Emergency Injunction granted in DCR 23 [2026] is "extraordinary and plainly nonsensical to secure the Underlying Case Plaintiff's ability to collect on a potential relief of $76,500", but, we suggest that a blanket pause invites the exact harm emergency injunctions exist to prevent particularly where, by Appellant’s own framing, the appellate proceedings will take time for full briefing and long-form adjudication, and that therefore an all or nothing suspension misapplies and overcorrects the emergency injunction purpose (“prevent harm”) by eliminating protection in the underlying case entirely.

G. Parties representing BurgersBeware argue that, respecting the first EI granted in DCR 23 [2026], the pendulum swung too far in the right direction, and, upon the corrective injunction sought by the Appellant in this case, the pendulum has again swung back in the wrong direction, and, we respectfully suggest, that the correct movement of this court is to order the lower court to exercise its right to issue corrective relief under the Court Orders mechanism recognizing Error Coram Nobis as correction of the aforementioned “fundamental error”, or, pursuant to [§2(c) Modern Judicial Standards Act] “Reverse and Remand”, this Court should reverse the Emergency Injunction only to the extent it imposes an uncapped blanket freeze/seizure, and remand with instruction that the District Court enter the capped preservation order BurgersBeware moved for: freezing liquid cash/transferable assets up to $76,500, then release any excess.

II. PROCEDURAL POSTURE AND AGREED FACTS NECESSARY​

II.I. The underlying motion sought a capped preservation order​

A. The Underlying Motion (DCR 23 [2026] Emergency Injunction) is explicit that the requested restraint was capped: “freezing liquid cash and transferable assets … in an amount equal to or exceeding the Prayer for Relief.”
B. The Motion also grounds its relief in Court Orders guidance: “Emergency Injunction … prevent harm,” and relies on precedent for “freeze … until the value … exceeds the prayer for relief.”, with common law precedence cited in support: ([2025] FCR 131, [2025] FCR 119, [2022] FCR 47)

II.II. THE DISTRICT COURT ORDER WENT BEYOND THE PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST​

A. The District Court’s injunctive order directed DHS to: “Freeze and seize the assets” of Defendants and to “identify, then freeze and seize” assets transferred to the Appellant.
B. That phrasing (i) does not incorporate the Plaintiff’s implication that the freezing of assets should be capped and (ii) imposes seizure in a pre-judgment posture that exceeds the Plaintiffs Prayer for relief and the jurisdiction of the district court, which is the central trigger for this interlocutory dispute.
C. As the Appellant was "not a named party", and, was instead, named as a "relief defendant", the Appellant argues they could not have contested the Emergency Injunction without lodging an Interlocutory Appeal in this court.

II.III. THE APPELLANT'S EMERGENCY MOTION IN THIS APPEAL ASKED TO BE RELEASED FROM ENFORCEMENT​

A. Appellant requested an emergency injunction enjoining DHS “from enforcing against the Appellant” and sought that the District Court EI be “stayed pending resolution.”
B. The Court granted emergency relief: “Granted. The EI ('referring to the Emergency Injunction in DCR 23 [2026]') of the District Court shall be suspended pending the adjudication of this appeal.”
C. The Court then issued summons requiring BurgersBeware's counsel to appear in this appeal.

III. GOVERNING ACTS AND LAW​

PART VI MJSA: APPEALS​

1. Application to Appeal
(1) After a proceeding concludes, a litigant may apply to the appellate court to appeal the court's judgment.
(2) An application to appeal must allege that the court:
(a) Made an error of law;
(b) Made a finding of fact that was not reasonably supported by the evidence; or
(c) Acted in a way that resulted in procedural unfairness.
(3) An application to appeal must be filed within one month of the court's judgment.
(4) Appellate courts are established:
(a) For a proceeding in the District Court, the Federal Court;
(b) For a proceeding in the Federal Court, the Supreme Court.
(c) For a proceeding in the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, in strict circumstances, outlined in the Commonwealth Constitution.

III.I INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS ARE LIMITED TO CLEAR LEGAL ERROR, NOT DISAGREEMENT WITH MERIT​

A. Interlocutory appeals are defined as petitions “when a clear error of law occurs during proceedings,” with conditions that the error is “a significant legal mistake,” impacts “fairness or accuracy,” and that delay “until final judgment would cause irreparable harm.” - MJSA PART VI(3)

3. Interlocutory Appeals
(1) A party may petition for an interlocutory appeal to the relevant higher court when a clear error of law occurs during proceedings that materially biases the outcome of the lower court case.
(2) The following conditions must be met for an interlocutory appeal to be considered:
(a) The alleged error constitutes a significant legal mistake, not merely a disagreement with the lower court's interpretation;
(b) The error substantially impacts the fairness or accuracy of the ongoing proceedings; and
(c) Delaying resolution until a final judgment would cause irreparable harm.
(3) The higher court has sole discretion to grant or deny an interlocutory appeal. If granted, proceedings in the lower court will be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.

III.II. REVERSE AND REMAND IS AN AUTHORIZED APPEAL OUTCOME​

A. The Modern Judicial Standards Act PART VI (§2)(3)(d) outlines that the Appellant court may: "Reverse and Remand. The appellate court reverses the lower court's decision, or part of it, and remands the case to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's verdict."

III.III. THE COURT RECOGNISES ERROR CORUM NOBIS AS A CORRECTIVE MECHANISM​

A. Court Orders guidance defines: “Allows a court to correct its original judgment upon discovery of a fundamental error not apparent in the record during the trial."

IV. ARGUMENT​

IV.I INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL IS FOR ERROR OF LAW, NOT FOR DISPUTING UNDERLYING FACTS​

A. The Modern Judicial Standards Act draws a bright procedural line between (i) ordinary appeals, which may challenge findings of fact, and are reserved for post judgement appeals, and (ii) interlocutory appeals, which exist only to correct a clear error of law during ongoing proceedings.
B. Under Part VI (§1)(1): “After a proceeding concludes, a litigant may apply to the appellate court to appeal the court’s judgment.”. That same provision specifies what an appeal under normal circumstances may allege, including disputing factual grounds in §1(2)(b): “Made a finding of fact that was not reasonably supported by the evidence.”
C. In contrast, Part VI (§3)(1) limits interlocutory appeals to legal error only: “A party may petition for an interlocutory appeal . . . when a clear error of law occurs during proceedings that materially biases the outcome of the lower court case”
D. Accordingly, to the extent the Appellant’s submissions invite this Court to weigh, determine, or prefer one set of disputed factual assertions over another, that invitation is incompatible with Part VI’s structure. factual disputes belong to §1(2)(b) appeals after “a proceeding concludes,” not to §3 interlocutory review before trial findings exist. It is therefor that we argue that the Court should cabin this appeal to correcting the injunction’s legal defect, not allowing the appeal to become a surrogate trial of the underlying tort narrative, If the Appellant wishes to attack BurgersBeware’s factual theory, the proper forum is the District Court through discovery, motions practice, and trial

IV.II. A GLOBAL SUSPENSION IS OVERCORRECTION, IT DEFEATS THE PREVENTATIVE FUNCTION AND INVITES HARM​

A. To begin this point, i will refer to the Appellants own analysis on the purposes of an Emergency Injunction, see §II.I.I.I .
As correctly stated by the Appellants representative, "Emergency Injunctions must be granted to prevent harm, not cause harm". and "In other words, Emergency Injunctions are granted to prevent harm, but (1) the Court must also consider the harm caused by the granting of the Emergency Injunction"
We also agree with The Appellant when they stated: "The harm caused by freezing and seizing ~$6 million worth of appellant's assets is in gross excess of the harm prevented by protecting the Underlying Case Plaintiff's ability to collect $76,500.", and every subsequent argument in the relevant section they discussed the underlying emergency injunction (DCR 23 [2026])
B. We do however, find it remarkable, that the Appellant's correct analysis on the purposes of an Emergency Injunction led the Appellant to incorrectly apply that analysis, in requesting the court to issue a motion that fully pauses the underlying motion:

The Department of Homeland Security is Enjoined from enforcing against the Appellant the Emergency Injunction granted by the District Court at 9:55 A.M. on 3 March 2026, until such a time as this interlocutory appeal is fully handled;
The Emergency Injunction granted by the District Court at 9:55 A.M. on 3 March 2026 is stayed pending resolution of this appeal.

C. By the Appellants own analysis, Emergency Injunctions serve the purposes of preserving the status quo, and, preventing harm, and yet, the Appellant managed to issue a request for a corrective injunction which, yes, does undo the harm that the Hon. Magistrate caused by issuing an over reaching asset freeze in the value of approximately $6,000,000, but one that also undoes the protection granted to ensure the Prayer for Relief in the underlying case was preserved.
D. The correct remedy is not a total suspension of preservation, but a Reverse and Remand in part (or an Error Coram Nobis correction) to the capped injunction that the Plaintiff actually sought, as the verdict should be that the District court erred by issuing an uncapped "freeze and sieze" order. The cure is to reverse the injunction in part and remand with instructions to enter a preservation order that freezes only up to the Underlying Prayer for Relief ($76,500.00), releasing all assets in excess of that cap.

IV.III. IF THE CAPPED PRESERVATION ORDER IS IMPOSED, FURTHER FEDERAL PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE HELD IN ABEYANCE​

A. Under MJSA Part VI (§3(3)), if an interlocutory appeal is granted, the lower case is “stayed pending the outcome.”, The “outcome” sought here is narrow and can be achieved quickly by a Reverse and Remand in part correcting the injunction in the underlying case. Once corrected, the interlocutory controversy is resolved, and the District Court should then proceed to adjudicate the facts. Any appeal about the facts/merits must wait until “after a proceeding concludes (PART VI §1) ” and a judgment exists.

CONCLUDING STATEMENT​

our counsel agrees the District Court’s injunction, as executed, went too far. The remedy is not to abolish preservation altogether, but to correct the legal error by imposing the capped freeze myself and PvM2Max actually requested. This Court should confine interlocutory review to that legal error, prohibit premature litigation of DCR 23 merits facts in this forum, and allow the District Court to proceed to judgment unencumbered once the injunction is corrected.​

Yours cordially,

Plaintiff, [2026] DCR 23
by counsel: ToAsTyAX, on behalf of Titan Legal Group LLC

 

[iToAsTyAX]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

The defence respectfully moves for this court to reconsider and modify the emergency injunction order previously granted in this interlocutory appeal which suspended the District Court’s Emergency Injunction pending adjudication.

This motion is brought to prevent undue harm caused by a complete suspension of preservation, uniting the requested preservation with what was sought in the underlying case, and to align emergency relief with the narrow, lawful purpose of interlocutory appeal under the Modern Judicial Standards Act, as we have plausibly argued prior.

I. RELIEF REQUESTED

A. MODIFY the emergency relief so it does not operate as a global pause of preservation, and instead imposes the capped preservation regime BurgersBeware sought in DCR 23, namely:
(i). Freeze (preserve), not seize, liquid cash and transferable assets only up to $76,500.00, the Underlying Prayer for Relief total; and
(ii). Release all liquid cash and transferable assets restrained above that cap; and
(iii). Limit any restraint as to Appellant MasterCaelen to assets traceable to transfers from the Underlying Defendants, up to the cap.

B. In the alternative, REVERSE AND REMAND IN PART the District Court’s Emergency Injunction order and direct the District Court to enter a capped preservation order consistent with the Underlying motion ($76,500.00), and allow proceedings in the DCR case to continue as the appeal is stayed until such a time the underlying facts of the case have been judged upon.

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

The defence respectfully moves for this court to reconsider and modify the emergency injunction order previously granted in this interlocutory appeal which suspended the District Court’s Emergency Injunction pending adjudication.

This motion is brought to prevent undue harm caused by a complete suspension of preservation, uniting the requested preservation with what was sought in the underlying case, and to align emergency relief with the narrow, lawful purpose of interlocutory appeal under the Modern Judicial Standards Act, as we have plausibly argued prior.

I. RELIEF REQUESTED

A. MODIFY the emergency relief so it does not operate as a global pause of preservation, and instead imposes the capped preservation regime BurgersBeware sought in DCR 23, namely:
(i). Freeze (preserve), not seize, liquid cash and transferable assets only up to $76,500.00, the Underlying Prayer for Relief total; and
(ii). Release all liquid cash and transferable assets restrained above that cap; and
(iii). Limit any restraint as to Appellant MasterCaelen to assets traceable to transfers from the Underlying Defendants, up to the cap.

B. In the alternative, REVERSE AND REMAND IN PART the District Court’s Emergency Injunction order and direct the District Court to enter a capped preservation order consistent with the Underlying motion ($76,500.00), and allow proceedings in the DCR case to continue as the appeal is stayed until such a time the underlying facts of the case have been judged upon.

Response

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor,

Appellant agrees that undue harm was caused to them when the District Court froze $6 million in assets properly belonging to the appellant. While the amount of assets subject to seizure order being lowered largely addresses appeal reasons 1-3, it does not address the due process requirements under our fourth ground for appeal (See generally: Appeal Brief, Section II.I.IV). That ground, as summarized later in our appeal, is that in this whole situation “the District Court failed to provide the Appellant an opportunity to be heard, violating the Appellant's ninth and fourteenth Charter Rights”.

The cause of this ground arises from the Underlying Case Plaintiff’s filings and failure to include the Appellant as a Defendant. The Underlying Case Plaintiff could have sought to join this Appellant to the Underlying Case in its complaint, which would have resulted in a summons being issued to Appellant and allowed the Appellant to (1) file motions; (2) present legal defenses; and (3) participate in the fact-finding process in the District Court.

Instead, the Underlying Case Plaintiff sought the District Court to freeze and seize Appellant’s assets while not actually naming them as a defendant in the underlying matter, creating a quasi-category of “relief defendant”. To the best of this counsel’s knowledge, such quasi-category has no basis in statute or precedent within the Commonwealth. The Underlying Case Plaintiff cannot rely upon a novel quasi-category to expose the Appellant to judgement and also deprive the Plaintiff of due process rights afforded to civil defendants.

Constitutional injury of this sort does not disappear just because we’ve started lowering the quantity of assets subject to a seizure order. The issuance of an Order materially and directly affecting the property rights of the Appellant, even when the Underlying Case’s Plaintiff is not actually suing Appellant, is harm itself. It deprives the Appellant of the opportunity to launch the sort of full-throated defense that due process requires. And it is exactly why this Court must continue to enjoin the District Court’s EI against this Appellant.

We therefore ask that this motion to reconsider be denied pending the final resolution of this appeal.

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

The defence respectfully moves for this court to reconsider and modify the emergency injunction order previously granted in this interlocutory appeal which suspended the District Court’s Emergency Injunction pending adjudication.

This motion is brought to prevent undue harm caused by a complete suspension of preservation, uniting the requested preservation with what was sought in the underlying case, and to align emergency relief with the narrow, lawful purpose of interlocutory appeal under the Modern Judicial Standards Act, as we have plausibly argued prior.

I. RELIEF REQUESTED

A. MODIFY the emergency relief so it does not operate as a global pause of preservation, and instead imposes the capped preservation regime BurgersBeware sought in DCR 23, namely:
(i). Freeze (preserve), not seize, liquid cash and transferable assets only up to $76,500.00, the Underlying Prayer for Relief total; and
(ii). Release all liquid cash and transferable assets restrained above that cap; and
(iii). Limit any restraint as to Appellant MasterCaelen to assets traceable to transfers from the Underlying Defendants, up to the cap.

B. In the alternative, REVERSE AND REMAND IN PART the District Court’s Emergency Injunction order and direct the District Court to enter a capped preservation order consistent with the Underlying motion ($76,500.00), and allow proceedings in the DCR case to continue as the appeal is stayed until such a time the underlying facts of the case have been judged upon.

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order - Appellee Motion to Reconsider

DENIED.

MasterCaelen is not a party to the lower Court case. To permit the resumption of an injunction that, as Plaintiff-Appellant proffers, may violate MasterCaelen's constitutional rights is improper and an abuse of judicial discretion.

So ordered,
Judge Mug

 

[Muggy21]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order - MasterCaelen v. Hon. Magistrate Dr_Eksplosive [2026] FCR 14

SUMMARY OF APPEAL

On February 19th, 2026, BurgersBeware filed suit against Modzy and Spyders_Crypt in the District Court (BurgersBeware v. Modzy & Spyders_Crypt [2026] DCR 23). The Plaintiff sought $76,500.00 in total damages. Concurrent with that filing, Plaintiff's counsel moved for an Emergency Injunction identifying MasterCaelen as a "relief defendant," a designation with no recognized basis in the statutes or precedent of this Commonwealth. On March 3rd, 2026, the District Court granted the Emergency Injunction, ordering the Department of Homeland Security to freeze and seize the assets of both named Defendants and, critically, to "identify, then freeze and seize the assets formerly belonging to Modzy_ that was transferred to one MasterCaelen." By the Plaintiff's own exhibit (P-001), these assets exceed $6 million in value. MasterCaelen was never named as a party to the underlying case and was never summoned.

MasterCaelen, through counsel, filed this interlocutory appeal and an accompanying motion for emergency relief. This Court granted emergency relief suspending the District Court's Emergency Injunction pending adjudication of this appeal. Parties come before this Court fully briefed, and the Court adjudicates as follows.

REMARKS ON JURISDICTION

Under the Modern Judicial Standards Act, a party may petition for an interlocutory appeal when a clear error of law occurs during proceedings that materially biases the outcome of the lower court case. The following conditions must be satisfied: (a) the alleged error constitutes a significant legal mistake, not merely a disagreement with the lower court's interpretation; (b) the error substantially impacts the fairness or accuracy of the ongoing proceedings; and (c) delaying resolution until a final judgment would cause irreparable harm.

This Court confirms that all three conditions for interlocutory relief are satisfied. First, the errors are significant legal mistakes, including a disproportionate injunction contrary to common law, an unreasonable seizure under the Constitution, a jurisdictional overreach, and a denial of due process. These are not mere disagreements with the District Court's interpretation. Second, the errors substantially impact the fairness and accuracy of the ongoing proceedings, as the Appellant has been entirely excluded from proceedings that directly affect his property rights and the factual record has been shaped without his participation. Third, delaying resolution until final judgment would cause irreparable harm. The Appellant's business operations have been frozen; The constitutional injury of being bound by an order one cannot contest is itself an ongoing, irreparable harm.

For these reasons, Appellant meets his burden under the MJSA.


OPINION OF THE COURT

On plain reading of the DCR case, plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $76,500. In issuing the EI, the DCR effectively froze assets exceeding $6 million dollars belonging to a third-party, not summoned. No reasonable construction of the preventative nature of an EI can justify the seizure of assets described, particularly when directed at a third-party. Beyond the unreasonable forfeiture based on the amount of assets effected, the Court finds several constitutional faults as well.

The seizure of over $6 million in assets to secure a potential judgment of $76,500.00 cannot be described as reasonable under Section 35(15) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to be secure against unreasonable seizure. The District Court had readily available to it a narrower remedy, namely the capped preservation order that BurgersBeware's own counsel had originally proposed, yet chose instead to order a blanket freeze without any proportionality limitation. This overreach also implicates the District Court's jurisdiction, as Sections 15 and 16 of the Constitution limit the District Court to minor civil cases not exceeding $120,000; An order placing $6 million in assets under that court's control exceeds the constitutional boundaries of its authority. Most consequentially, MasterCaelen was never named as a defendant, never summoned, and given no notice or opportunity to respond, while the Underlying Plaintiff relied on a quasi-category of "relief defendant" that has no basis in Commonwealth statute or precedent. Since individuals who are not summoned to a case may not speak in or file motions in court proceedings, as recognized in [2025] FCR 119, the Appellant was left with no recourse other than this interlocutory appeal. The result is that the District Court froze millions of dollars in assets belonging to a person who could not contest it, based on factual representations that person could not challenge, constituting a denial of due process under Sections 35(9) and (14) of the Constitution. BurgersBeware's counsel argues that a capped preservation order of $76,500.00 would cure this defect, but this Court disagrees; the constitutional injury arises from the structural denial of an opportunity to be heard, not from the dollar amount, and a smaller seizure without due process is still a seizure without due process. If the Underlying Plaintiff wishes to pursue claims requiring the freezing of MasterCaelen's assets, the proper course is to name MasterCaelen as a party, ensure MasterCaelen is summoned, and afford MasterCaelen the full procedural rights that any defendant is entitled to under the Constitution.

For the reasons above, the Court adjudicates as follows:

ORDER OF THE COURT

1. The injunction issued in the DCR, as applied to MasterCaelen, is disproportionate and exceeds the accepted use of an Emergency Injunction.

2. The District Court's order constituted an unreasonable seizure.
3. The District Court exceeded its jurisdictional limit as set in the Constitution.

The District Court's Emergency Injunction is hereby modified: the provision pertaining to assets held by MasterCaelen is vacated in its entirety. The injunction as it pertains to the named Defendants is restored.

The Federal Court remands the EI back to the District Court with the following instructions:

1. The District Court shall not impose any injunctive relief against MasterCaelen's assets unless and until MasterCaelen is properly named as a party, summoned, and afforded an opportunity to be heard.
​

As this is an interlocutory appeal and not a full case before this Court, this Court will not award legal fees. The District Court shall consider this appeal in determining an augmentation in legal fees when appropriate.


So ordered,
Judge Mug