Lawsuit: Pending JimSimons v. Epiphone335 [2026] DCR 145

[xndxrsxn]

Case Filing​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


JimSimons
Plaintiff

v.

Epiphone335
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

I leased 14 sub plots totalling 378 blocks at C234 from Epiphone335 on the 19th of August 2026 intened to be used as Bank storage for my bullion. While conversing with SilverTWT about said leases I mentioned to them that I held leased space in the same block, when i brought this up, they immediately stopped replying. Moments later, Epiphone335 messaged me and told me that we had a "misunderstanding" and that they do not understand what I leased. They told me it is useless space and that I am prohibited from leasing the space. They offered me $1000 per lease to remove them, totalling $14000. I delcined this offer. Upon declining Epiphone335 threatened me and told me "you dont want trouble with us", I declined further and they stopped replying. I was then murdered multiple times and had bounties placed on my head totalling thousands of dollars. I believe I am being repeatedly murdered because I will not accpet what they are telling me (with regard to the price). Epiphone335 also told me that the spaces I leased were for "members" and memberships cost $270,000.

I. PARTIES
1. JimSimons (Plaintiff)
2. Xndxrsxn Craft (Council for the Plaintiff)
3. Epiphone335 (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. The plaintiff has a lease on claims: sdb_a2, sdb_a3, sdb_a4, sdb_b1 through sdb_b7, sdb_c2 through sdb_c8 totalling 378 blocks.
2. The leases were listed publicly when procured by the plantiff.
3. There was no notion of a "membership" being required at the time of lease.
4. A sign was placed on the main building after the plantiff had procured the lease after the defendant was contacted by the plantiff informing them there was no signage.
5. The Plaintiff has a valid lease on the claims for more than 1000 days.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The defendant has no grounds for eviction under the Property Standards Act
2. The plantiff's rights have been violated as outlined in 21. (2) of the Property Standards Act
3. The plantiff has suffered severe emotional distress due to the ordeal and constant harassment/attacks from other players
4. Meets the criteria of Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce as outlined in the Redmont Civil Code Act


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Punitive damages as determined by the court.
2. Access to the properties in dispute without hinderence.
3. $25,000 in Damages due to emotional distress caused by intentional violation.
4. Legal fees

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

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 23rd day of August 2026

Filed by council on behalf of JimSimons

 

[xndxrsxn]

Motion​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

The plaintiff requests an emergency injunction for the following:

The contested claims may not be transferred, seized, evicted, or otherwise have their titleholder changed for the duration of this case.

Grounds for the Application:

• Serious Question to be Tried: The Applicant has a prima facie claim to a proprietary and possessory interest in the Property, as detailed in the Statement of Claim.
• Irreparable Harm: If the Respondent alters the title or evicts the occupants, the damage to the Applicant will be irreversible. Money damages cannot adequately compensate for the loss of unique real property or the displacement of the occupants.
• Balance of Convenience: The balance of convenience overwhelmingly favours maintaining the status quo. The Respondent suffers only a temporary restriction on property disposal, whereas the Applicant faces total and permanent loss of their claimed rights before the court can hear the merits of the case.

 

[xndxrsxn]

MOTION​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

RENEWED MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Your Honour,

I sincerely apologise for speaking out of turn however; there has been a significant change in circumstances regarding the lease agreement pertaining to the last emergency injunction request.

The Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court to consider and renew the relief sought in the Plaintiff's previously filed Motion for Emergency Injunction due to a material and urgent change in circumstances occurring after commencement of these proceedings.

I. MATERIAL CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES​

1. At the commencement of these proceedings, the Plaintiff held leases over fourteen (14) disputed regions located beneath C234.
2. The Plaintiff subsequently filed a Motion for Emergency Injunction specifically seeking to prevent those disputed regions from being transferred, seized, evicted, or otherwise having the Plaintiff's possessory interest altered during the pendency of this case.
3. At the time that Motion was filed, the Plaintiff remained in possession of the disputed leases.
4. Since the filing of this case and the Plaintiff's Motion for Emergency Injunction, thirteen (13) of the fourteen (14) disputed leases have now been terminated or otherwise removed from the Plaintiff's possession.
5. The only disputed region which, to the Plaintiff's present knowledge, remains leased to the Plaintiff is sdb_b7.
6. The Plaintiff is presently unable to confirm whether any of the thirteen affected regions have subsequently been leased, transferred, or otherwise placed into the possession of third parties.
7. This constitutes the precise harm which the Plaintiff's original Motion for Emergency Injunction sought to prevent.

II. URGENCY AND IRREPARABLE HARM​

1. The circumstances underlying the Plaintiff's original Motion have therefore materially changed.
2. A purely prohibitory injunction is no longer sufficient to preserve the status quo because the status quo existing at the commencement of these proceedings has already been altered.
3. Unless immediate relief is granted, there remains a substantial risk that the affected regions may be leased, transferred, modified, or otherwise dealt with in a manner which would further complicate or frustrate the Court's ability to provide effective relief should the Plaintiff ultimately prevail.
4. The Plaintiff submits that allowing the disputed property interests to continue changing while their lawful possession is the very subject of this proceeding would create substantially greater harm than temporarily preserving them pending adjudication.
5. Conversely, the Defendant would suffer comparatively limited prejudice from an order temporarily preserving the disputed regions while the Court determines the respective rights of the parties.

III. RESTORATION OF THE STATUS QUO​

1. The Plaintiff respectfully submits that the appropriate status quo for the purposes of interlocutory relief is the position immediately preceding the disputed termination of the Plaintiff's leases.
2. At that time, the Plaintiff possessed valid leases over all fourteen disputed regions and claimed the protections afforded to tenants under the Property Standards Act.
3. The subsequent termination of thirteen leases should not be permitted to render the Plaintiff's pending request for emergency relief ineffective merely because the complained-of harm occurred before the Court had an opportunity to determine that request.
4. Restoration and preservation of the pre-termination position would ensure that the subject matter of this litigation remains intact while imposing no final determination as to the merits of either party's claim.

IV. RELIEF REQUESTED​

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court issue an Emergency Injunction ordering:

1. That the thirteen disputed regions from which the Plaintiff has been removed be immediately frozen from any further rental, transfer, sale, modification, reassignment, or other alteration of possessory interests pending further Order of this Court;
2. That sdb_b7 likewise be protected from eviction, termination, transfer, modification, or interference for the duration of these proceedings;
3. That, where technically possible and where no intervening third-party rights prevent immediate restoration, the Plaintiff's tenancy over the thirteen affected regions be restored to the position and remaining rental duration that existed immediately prior to their termination;
4. Alternatively, should any affected region presently be held by a third party, that the region be immediately frozen from any further transfer, rental, modification, or reassignment until this Court can determine the appropriate interim disposition;
5. That the relevant server or property records concerning the thirteen terminations, including the identity of the person responsible and the date and time of each termination, be preserved and produced as the Court considers appropriate;
6. That no party take any action intended to frustrate, defeat, or materially alter the subject matter of these proceedings pending final determination; and
7. Such further or alternative emergency relief as this Court considers just and necessary to preserve its ability to provide an effective remedy.

The Plaintiff emphasises that this Motion does not ask the Court to make a final determination that the Defendant acted unlawfully. It seeks only to restore and preserve, insofar as practicable, the position which existed when these proceedings commenced so that the subject matter of the dispute remains capable of meaningful adjudication.

Respectfully submitted,

Xndxrsxn Craft
Counsel for the Plaintiff
JimSimons

 

[Muggy21]

Motion​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

The plaintiff requests an emergency injunction for the following:

The contested claims may not be transferred, seized, evicted, or otherwise have their titleholder changed for the duration of this case.

Grounds for the Application:

• Serious Question to be Tried: The Applicant has a prima facie claim to a proprietary and possessory interest in the Property, as detailed in the Statement of Claim.
• Irreparable Harm: If the Respondent alters the title or evicts the occupants, the damage to the Applicant will be irreversible. Money damages cannot adequately compensate for the loss of unique real property or the displacement of the occupants.
• Balance of Convenience: The balance of convenience overwhelmingly favours maintaining the status quo. The Respondent suffers only a temporary restriction on property disposal, whereas the Applicant faces total and permanent loss of their claimed rights before the court can hear the merits of the case.

DENIED. No eviction has been effectuated nor has any proof been given to that effect.

Further, if you continue to file with an AI, I will dismiss this action and fine you Counselor.

 

[Muggy21]

MOTION​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

RENEWED MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Your Honour,

I sincerely apologise for speaking out of turn however; there has been a significant change in circumstances regarding the lease agreement pertaining to the last emergency injunction request.

The Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court to consider and renew the relief sought in the Plaintiff's previously filed Motion for Emergency Injunction due to a material and urgent change in circumstances occurring after commencement of these proceedings.

I. MATERIAL CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES​

1. At the commencement of these proceedings, the Plaintiff held leases over fourteen (14) disputed regions located beneath C234.
2. The Plaintiff subsequently filed a Motion for Emergency Injunction specifically seeking to prevent those disputed regions from being transferred, seized, evicted, or otherwise having the Plaintiff's possessory interest altered during the pendency of this case.
3. At the time that Motion was filed, the Plaintiff remained in possession of the disputed leases.
4. Since the filing of this case and the Plaintiff's Motion for Emergency Injunction, thirteen (13) of the fourteen (14) disputed leases have now been terminated or otherwise removed from the Plaintiff's possession.
5. The only disputed region which, to the Plaintiff's present knowledge, remains leased to the Plaintiff is sdb_b7.
6. The Plaintiff is presently unable to confirm whether any of the thirteen affected regions have subsequently been leased, transferred, or otherwise placed into the possession of third parties.
7. This constitutes the precise harm which the Plaintiff's original Motion for Emergency Injunction sought to prevent.

II. URGENCY AND IRREPARABLE HARM​

1. The circumstances underlying the Plaintiff's original Motion have therefore materially changed.
2. A purely prohibitory injunction is no longer sufficient to preserve the status quo because the status quo existing at the commencement of these proceedings has already been altered.
3. Unless immediate relief is granted, there remains a substantial risk that the affected regions may be leased, transferred, modified, or otherwise dealt with in a manner which would further complicate or frustrate the Court's ability to provide effective relief should the Plaintiff ultimately prevail.
4. The Plaintiff submits that allowing the disputed property interests to continue changing while their lawful possession is the very subject of this proceeding would create substantially greater harm than temporarily preserving them pending adjudication.
5. Conversely, the Defendant would suffer comparatively limited prejudice from an order temporarily preserving the disputed regions while the Court determines the respective rights of the parties.

III. RESTORATION OF THE STATUS QUO​

1. The Plaintiff respectfully submits that the appropriate status quo for the purposes of interlocutory relief is the position immediately preceding the disputed termination of the Plaintiff's leases.
2. At that time, the Plaintiff possessed valid leases over all fourteen disputed regions and claimed the protections afforded to tenants under the Property Standards Act.
3. The subsequent termination of thirteen leases should not be permitted to render the Plaintiff's pending request for emergency relief ineffective merely because the complained-of harm occurred before the Court had an opportunity to determine that request.
4. Restoration and preservation of the pre-termination position would ensure that the subject matter of this litigation remains intact while imposing no final determination as to the merits of either party's claim.

IV. RELIEF REQUESTED​

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court issue an Emergency Injunction ordering:

1. That the thirteen disputed regions from which the Plaintiff has been removed be immediately frozen from any further rental, transfer, sale, modification, reassignment, or other alteration of possessory interests pending further Order of this Court;
2. That sdb_b7 likewise be protected from eviction, termination, transfer, modification, or interference for the duration of these proceedings;
3. That, where technically possible and where no intervening third-party rights prevent immediate restoration, the Plaintiff's tenancy over the thirteen affected regions be restored to the position and remaining rental duration that existed immediately prior to their termination;
4. Alternatively, should any affected region presently be held by a third party, that the region be immediately frozen from any further transfer, rental, modification, or reassignment until this Court can determine the appropriate interim disposition;
5. That the relevant server or property records concerning the thirteen terminations, including the identity of the person responsible and the date and time of each termination, be preserved and produced as the Court considers appropriate;
6. That no party take any action intended to frustrate, defeat, or materially alter the subject matter of these proceedings pending final determination; and
7. Such further or alternative emergency relief as this Court considers just and necessary to preserve its ability to provide an effective remedy.

The Plaintiff emphasises that this Motion does not ask the Court to make a final determination that the Defendant acted unlawfully. It seeks only to restore and preserve, insofar as practicable, the position which existed when these proceedings commenced so that the subject matter of the dispute remains capable of meaningful adjudication.

Respectfully submitted,

Xndxrsxn Craft
Counsel for the Plaintiff
JimSimons

Likewise DENIED, you offer no evidence for any of this.

 

[Muggy21]

Writ of Summons

@Epiphone335 is commanded to appear in the District Court in the case of JimSimons v. Epiphone335 [2026] DCR 144

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.

 

[CreeperTD]

Present on behalf of Theory, Talion & Partners, the representatives of the Defendant, your honor.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[Muggy21]

Present on behalf of Theory, Talion & Partners, the representatives of the Defendant, your honor.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

View attachment 96576

Greetings counselor,

Prepare an Answer within 48 Hours.

All parties be aware that I'm using a docket system to reply to cases. I don't need to be pinged to continue a case, I'm tracking all of it *automagically*

 

[CreeperTD]

Case Filing​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


JimSimons
Plaintiff

v.

Epiphone335
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF




I. PARTIES
1. JimSimons (Plaintiff)
2. Xndxrsxn Craft (Council for the Plaintiff)
3. Epiphone335 (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. The plaintiff has a lease on claims: sdb_a2, sdb_a3, sdb_a4, sdb_b1 through sdb_b7, sdb_c2 through sdb_c8 totalling 378 blocks.
2. The leases were listed publicly when procured by the plantiff.
3. There was no notion of a "membership" being required at the time of lease.
4. A sign was placed on the main building after the plantiff had procured the lease after the defendant was contacted by the plantiff informing them there was no signage.
5. The Plaintiff has a valid lease on the claims for more than 1000 days.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The defendant has no grounds for eviction under the Property Standards Act
2. The plantiff's rights have been violated as outlined in 21. (2) of the Property Standards Act
3. The plantiff has suffered severe emotional distress due to the ordeal and constant harassment/attacks from other players
4. Meets the criteria of Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce as outlined in the Redmont Civil Code Act


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Punitive damages as determined by the court.
2. Access to the properties in dispute without hinderence.
3. $25,000 in Damages due to emotional distress caused by intentional violation.
4. Legal fees

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

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 23rd day of August 2026

Filed by council on behalf of JimSimons

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff’s complaint has failed to follow multiple required formatting requirements according to the Court Rules and Procedures, including:
1. Rule 3.1 which requires that “All complaints, even Small Claims, must use the appropriate “Creating a Lawsuit” format…”
2. Rule 1.10, as they have failed to hyperlink any of their cited sources.
3. Rule 4.6, which requires that evidence is “required to be labeled appropriately following the mentioned naming conventions. (plaintiff/p-### / defense/d-###).”

As such, the Defense humbly requests that the offending sections of the Plaintiff’s complaint either be amended or struck.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your honor,
The Defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed in its entirety under Rule 5.12 (Lack of Personal Jurisdiction), and should be dismissed with prejudice as the Plaintiff shall never have sufficient standing to pursue a case over this incident. In support thereof, the Defense respectfully alleges:

The Plaintiff has entirely failed to establish that they hold sufficient standing to pursue this case. Rule 2.1 of the Court Rules and Procedures states that:

In order for a plaintiff to pursue a case, they must show the following to the court:

1. Suffered some injury caused by a clear second party; or is affected by an application of law.
2. The cause of injury was against the law.
3. Remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision.

The Plaintiff fails to establish all 3 parts of standing. Firstly, no injury is alleged which is based upon Redmont law. The Plaintiff’s claims for relief are as follows:

1. The defendant has no grounds for eviction under the Property Standards Act
2. The plantiff's rights have been violated as outlined in 21. (2) of the Property Standards Act
3. The plantiff has suffered severe emotional distress due to the ordeal and constant harassment/attacks from other players
4. Meets the criteria of Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce as outlined in the Redmont Civil Code Act

None of these claims have any real basis from the text of the laws haphazardly cited by the Plaintiff. Examining each claim individually:
1. The Property Standards Act does not set any restrictions on the evictions of tenants by private landlords other than Part IV §21(3-4), which states that “A landlord must provide a tenant with at least 24 hours written notice before evicting them from a rented region” and that “If a tenant is evicted, they must receive a full refund of any prepaid rent.” There is no requirement provided by the cited act for a landlord to have “grounds for eviction.” There is no injury grounded in the law for this claim, and so the claim should be dismissed.
2. Assuming that the Plaintiff is referring to Part IV §21(2) of the Property Standards Act, that section reads:

(2) Tenant Exclusivity. Once a region is rented, the landlord may not enter, modify, or interfere with that region except as permitted under subsection (4).

The Plaintiff has not at any point established in their facts or evidence that the Defendant ever entered, modified, or interfered with any region at all, let alone a region rented by the Defendant, nor did they ever mention such an action in their Complaint. They have failed to show to the court that such an injury as is alleged by their second claim ever occurred, and as such this claim should also be dismissed.
3. Nowhere in Redmont law is emotional distress recognized as a claim for relief, nor is harassment which causes emotional distress a cognizable legal claim within the Redmont Civil Code Act, even if one attempts to apply it to the existing list of claims.This claim in particular fails all the requirements to hold standing, as no legal injury is alleged, nor is any action against the law stated, and there is no remedy according to the law which fits what the Plaintiff has requested. Due to this, the claim should be dismissed.
4. This claim is manifestly false and should not be considered. Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce, defined by RCCA Part VI §3 states that a person commits the violation if said person “engages in conduct that is misleading, deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive another person in connection with the promotion, sale, or supply of goods or services.” No goods or services were inherently at play here, but rather property, which at no point was promoted, sold, or supplied to the Plaintiff, even if one assumes all of the Plaintiff’s facts to be true, as the listed properties were only ever rented. Regardless, the Plaintiff has failed to show to the court that they were evicted from any properties, or that they had ever rented any but one of the properties mentioned in their complaint. As such, this claim should be dismissed.

The Plaintiff has failed to allege a legal injury rendered unto them by the Defendant in their complaint, and the submission of more evidence will not change this fact. Their complaint fails to meet the most basic requirements of a complaint according to Rule 3.1, because, as shown by the Defense, it has not met the criteria set out in Rule 2. As such, the Defense humbly requests that the court dismiss the Plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety with prejudice.

 

[Muggy21]

@xndxrsxn Please respond to the motion to dismiss within 48 Hours.