Lawsuit: In Session Ko531 v. Incarnation__ and Jakkuwu [2026] FCR 33

[ko531]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Ko531
Plaintiff

v.

Incarnation__ and Jakkuwu
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Respondent as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On the night of April 28th, 2026, my farm plot was raided in which all of my thousands of buff plants were stolen. The plants were located on levels of the farm that were not accessible in anyway as they were blocked off. When discovering that my farm plot had been robbed, I noticed that a block was broken to give the perpetrator access to the farm. Only two people had access to my farm plot up to this point were, MsGeorgia and Incarnation__. At the time MsGeorgia was offline leaving the only possibility Incarnation__. The perpetrator who was allowed access to steal the buffs was Jakkuwu who later admitted to both stealing it and telling who let them in.

I. PARTIES
ko531 (Plaintiff)
Incarnation__ (Defendant)
Jakkuwu (Defendant)

II. FACTS

1. On the night of April 28th my farm plot located at Wl-f091b was raided and every one of my buff plants were taken (P-006)
2. Only people with access to my farm were MsGeorgia and Incarnation__. (P-001)
3. The block located at 1381, -30, 1969 was broken given Jakkuwu access to my buffs (P-007 + P-002)
4. Jakkuwu admitted to stealing the plants and saying that Incarnation__ was the one to let him in. (P-001)
5. This raid was also later publicized by an article posted by Seed News Company in #news (P-003)
6. My farm plot has an area of 3224 blocks (P-004)
7. My buff area had 5 floors each for a single buff
8. Upperoni Plant sells for $30 a piece at the Buff Dealer (P-005)
9. Coco Seed sells for $15 a piece at the Buff Dealer (P-005)
10. Copium Poppy sells for $15 a piece at the Buff Dealer (P-005)
11. Morning Glory Seed sells for $20 a piece at the Buff Dealer (P-005)
12. Mayflower Sapling sells for $40 a piece at the Buff Dealer (P-005)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. Part VIII section 8 of the Criminal Code Act illegalizes the act of Theft. Part I Section 6.8.a.i allows for civil recovery in relation to the proceeds of a crime.
2. Punitive damages as defined in Part III Section 2.b.i and 2.b.ii of the Redmont Civil Code Act as the actions of Incarnation and Jakkuwu both Intended to cause harm and their conduct disadvantaged and harmed another person.
3. Consequential damages as defined in Part III Section 5.1.a.i of the Redmont Civil Code Act as the news article publishing the raid made me look foolish and humiliated me.
4. Compensatory Damages as defined in Part III Section 2.1.a of the Redmont Civil Code Act to restore the value in Buff crops that were stolen
5. Conversion as defined under Part VII Section 7.c.i of the Redmont Civil Code Act due to the stealing of my property in an attempt to permanently deprive me of it.
6. Treble Damages as defined in Part III Section 8.1.a allowed explicitly by the Conversion property tort which allows all Compensatory Damages to be tripled.
7. Without the help of Incarnation__, Jakkuwu never would have had access to my farm or had the ability to commit such a theft or publicize it which makes Incarnation__ also civilly liable for all the damage Jakkuwu caused.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. $145,080 (3224 x $15 x 3) for the loss in Coco Seed in Compensatory Damages and Treble Damages
2. $145,080 (3224 x $15 x 3) for the loss in Copium Poppy in Compensatory Damages and Treble Damages
3. $193,440 (3224 x $20 x 3) for the loss in Morning Glory Seed in Compensatory Damages and Treble Damages
4. $290,160 (3224 x $30 x 3) for the loss in Upperoni Plant in Compensatory Damages and Treble Damages
5. $386,880 (3224 x $40 x 3) for the loss in Mayflower Sapling in Compensatory Damages and Treble Damages
6. $100,000 in Punitive Damages as the acts by Incarnation and Jakkuwu had the intentional to cause harm.
7. $50,000 in Consequential damages for humiliation due to the publicizing of the raid in #news.
8. $393,192 in Legal Fees which is 30% of the case value
   
   This totals to $1,703,832.

Evidence:

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: P-004

Spoiler: P-005

Spoiler: P-006

Spoiler: P-007

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 29th day of April, 2026.

 

[Muggy21]

The Federal Court receives this action.

Also, @ko531 the caption states Incarnation and Jakkuwu, but Jakkuwu is not a party per your Complaint. Is this an oversight or should the caption be amended.

 

[ko531]

The Federal Court receives this action.

Also, @ko531 the caption states Incarnation and Jakkuwu, but Jakkuwu is not a party per your Complaint. Is this an oversight or should the caption be amended.

This was an oversight, The complaint has been updated

 

[ko531]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

I Requested the ability to amend the complaint to the following in order to add additional claims for relief allowed to be sought under the law and update the prayers to reflect the new claims:

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. Part VIII section 8 of the Criminal Code Act illegalizes the act of Theft. Part I Section 6.8.a.i allows for civil recovery in relation to the proceeds of a crime.
2. Punitive damages as defined in Part III Section 2.b.i and 2.b.ii of the Redmont Civil Code Act as the actions of Incarnation and Jakkuwu both Intended to cause harm and their conduct disadvantaged and harmed another person.
3. Consequential damages as defined in Part III Section 5.1.a.i of the Redmont Civil Code Act as the news article publishing the raid made me look foolish and humiliated me.
4. Compensatory Damages as defined in Part III Section 2.1.a of the Redmont Civil Code Act to restore the value in Buff crops that were stolen
5. Conversion as defined under Part VII Section 7.c.i of the Redmont Civil Code Act due to the stealing of my property in an attempt to permanently deprive me of it.
6. Treble Damages as defined in Part III Section 8.1.a allowed explicitly by the Conversion property tort which allows all Compensatory Damages to be tripled.
7. Without the help of Incarnation__, Jakkuwu never would have had access to my farm or had the ability to commit such a theft or publicize it which makes Incarnation__ also civilly liable for all the damage Jakkuwu caused.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. $145,080 (3224 x $15 x 3) for the loss in Coco Seed in Compensatory Damages and Treble Damages
2. $145,080 (3224 x $15 x 3) for the loss in Copium Poppy in Compensatory Damages and Treble Damages
3. $193,440 (3224 x $20 x 3) for the loss in Morning Glory Seed in Compensatory Damages and Treble Damages
4. $290,160 (3224 x $30 x 3) for the loss in Upperoni Plant in Compensatory Damages and Treble Damages
5. $386,880 (3224 x $40 x 3) for the loss in Mayflower Sapling in Compensatory Damages and Treble Damages
6. $100,000 in Punitive Damages as the acts by Incarnation and Jakkuwu had the intentional to cause harm.
7. $50,000 in Consequential damages for humiliation due to the publicizing of the raid in #news.
8. $393,192 in Legal Fees which is 30% of the case value
   
   This totals to $1,703,832.

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

I Requested the ability to amend the complaint to the following in order to add additional claims for relief allowed to be sought under the law and update the prayers to reflect the new claims:

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. Part VIII section 8 of the Criminal Code Act illegalizes the act of Theft. Part I Section 6.8.a.i allows for civil recovery in relation to the proceeds of a crime.
2. Punitive damages as defined in Part III Section 2.b.i and 2.b.ii of the Redmont Civil Code Act as the actions of Incarnation and Jakkuwu both Intended to cause harm and their conduct disadvantaged and harmed another person.
3. Consequential damages as defined in Part III Section 5.1.a.i of the Redmont Civil Code Act as the news article publishing the raid made me look foolish and humiliated me.
4. Compensatory Damages as defined in Part III Section 2.1.a of the Redmont Civil Code Act to restore the value in Buff crops that were stolen
5. Conversion as defined under Part VII Section 7.c.i of the Redmont Civil Code Act due to the stealing of my property in an attempt to permanently deprive me of it.
6. Treble Damages as defined in Part III Section 8.1.a allowed explicitly by the Conversion property tort which allows all Compensatory Damages to be tripled.
7. Without the help of Incarnation__, Jakkuwu never would have had access to my farm or had the ability to commit such a theft or publicize it which makes Incarnation__ also civilly liable for all the damage Jakkuwu caused.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. $145,080 (3224 x $15 x 3) for the loss in Coco Seed in Compensatory Damages and Treble Damages
2. $145,080 (3224 x $15 x 3) for the loss in Copium Poppy in Compensatory Damages and Treble Damages
3. $193,440 (3224 x $20 x 3) for the loss in Morning Glory Seed in Compensatory Damages and Treble Damages
4. $290,160 (3224 x $30 x 3) for the loss in Upperoni Plant in Compensatory Damages and Treble Damages
5. $386,880 (3224 x $40 x 3) for the loss in Mayflower Sapling in Compensatory Damages and Treble Damages
6. $100,000 in Punitive Damages as the acts by Incarnation and Jakkuwu had the intentional to cause harm.
7. $50,000 in Consequential damages for humiliation due to the publicizing of the raid in #news.
8. $393,192 in Legal Fees which is 30% of the case value
   
   This totals to $1,703,832.

Granted.

Writ of Summons

@Jakku and @Incarnation__ are hereby commanded to draw hither to the Federal Court for the case ko531 v. Incarnation__ & Jakkuwu_ [2026] FCR 32

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.

 

[ko531]

Motion

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

Your Honour,

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court issue an emergency injunction to immediately freeze all assets and property of both defendants or only $1,703,832 if either defendant is found to have more than is being requested until resolution of this matter.

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

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

Your Honour,

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court issue an emergency injunction to immediately freeze all assets and property of both defendants or only $1,703,832 if either defendant is found to have more than is being requested until resolution of this matter.

Granted with modification.

The DHS shall seize and secure assets up to $536,880, the alleged direct material harm to Plaintiff as per complaint. Treble damages are a function of statute and not of pecuniary harm, thus making a seizure for the full prayer inappropriate without full adjudication. Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the full amount of the injunction.

 

[ko531]

Your Honor,

I don't know if the DHS has already confiscated $536,880 worth of assets yet but just incase they have not I have evidence of one of the defendants violating the emergency Injunction.

 

[Incarnation__]

Granted.

Writ of Summons

@Jakku and @Incarnation__ are hereby commanded to draw hither to the Federal Court for the case ko531 v. Incarnation__ & Jakkuwu_ [2026] FCR 32

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.

Present, Your Honor.

 

[Incarnation__]

I am present on behalf of Jakkuwu as well.

 

[Incarnation__]

Code:
[Motion]
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

The Defendants request that the Courts issue an Emergency Injunction against Ko531. Due to the size of the Damages being sought, we believe there is a risk that the Plaintiff will be unable to pay the Legal Fees in full were he to lose this case. 

Therefore, we request that the Courts issue an emergency injunction to immediately freeze all assets and property of the Plaintiff, or only $511,149.60, which equates to 30% of the Total Damages the Plaintiff is seeking.:

In previous cases, Plaintiffs have quit the server before court rulings. We believe that it is reasonable to file for an Emergency Injunction under such circumstances. (see Lawsuit: Pending - RiggoSoft V. Dimitre977 [2026] DCR 25)
[/motion]

 

[Incarnation__]

Apologies, it appears my Motion did not get formatted correctly. Let me resubmit my motion with proper formatting.

 

[Incarnation__]

Motion

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

The Defendants request that the Courts issue an Emergency Injunction against Ko531. Due to the size of the Damages being sought, we believe there is a risk that the Plaintiff will be unable to pay the Legal Fees in full were he to lose this case.

Therefore, we request that the Courts issue an emergency injunction to immediately freeze all assets and property of the Plaintiff, or only $511,149.60, which equates to 30% of the Total Damages the Plaintiff is seeking.:

In previous cases, Plaintiffs have quit the server before court rulings. We believe that it is reasonable to file for an Emergency Injunction under such circumstances. (see Lawsuit: Pending - RiggoSoft V. Dimitre977 [2026] DCR 25)

 

[ko531]

Motion

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

The Defendants request that the Courts issue an Emergency Injunction against Ko531. Due to the size of the Damages being sought, we believe there is a risk that the Plaintiff will be unable to pay the Legal Fees in full were he to lose this case.

Therefore, we request that the Courts issue an emergency injunction to immediately freeze all assets and property of the Plaintiff, or only $511,149.60, which equates to 30% of the Total Damages the Plaintiff is seeking.:

In previous cases, Plaintiffs have quit the server before court rulings. We believe that it is reasonable to file for an Emergency Injunction under such circumstances. (see Lawsuit: Pending - RiggoSoft V. Dimitre977 [2026] DCR 25)

Your Honor,

Emergency Injunctions are to prevent irreparability harm as set in Commonwealth v Bardiya_King [2023] SCR 23. Such harm would occur if the court found in my favor and I could not be made whole which is why the emergency injunction was granted. Yet the only amount that was frozen were those related to the direct material harm to me, the Plaintiff, which includes Punitive damages, consequential damages and compensatory damages. Neither Treble damage nor legal fees were included when considering what assets of the defendant should be frozen.

The plaintiff is not alleging irreparable harm or would be irreparably harmed if legal fees weren't able to be fully paid. A lawsuit in of itself does not make someone un-whole. And to follow the precedent set in this very case, legals fees are not damages to freeze assets over in an emergency injunction.

The argument about plaintiffs leaving the server should be considered with the full context. While this is possible in all lawsuits, what are the chances that a citizen like me would ditch? A citizen who is currently on the court and has served on the court for around a combined 17 months and has active businesses that are over 3 years old on the server. The odds of any citizen with this level of attachment to the server to just up and leave over a lawsuit are slim to none.


For these reasons this insane emergency injunction shouldn't be granted and thrown out.

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

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

The Defendants request that the Courts issue an Emergency Injunction against Ko531. Due to the size of the Damages being sought, we believe there is a risk that the Plaintiff will be unable to pay the Legal Fees in full were he to lose this case.

Therefore, we request that the Courts issue an emergency injunction to immediately freeze all assets and property of the Plaintiff, or only $511,149.60, which equates to 30% of the Total Damages the Plaintiff is seeking.:

In previous cases, Plaintiffs have quit the server before court rulings. We believe that it is reasonable to file for an Emergency Injunction under such circumstances. (see Lawsuit: Pending - RiggoSoft V. Dimitre977 [2026] DCR 25)

DENIED. An Emergency Injunction is designed to protect against harms that are irreversible. Losing a court case is not one of those harms.

@Incarnation__ , you have 48 Hours to present an Answer.

 

[Incarnation__]

DENIED. An Emergency Injunction is designed to protect against harms that are irreversible. Losing a court case is not one of those harms.

@Incarnation__ , you have 48 Hours to present an Answer.

Thank you for the timely response Your Honour.

The Defendants accept the Court's decision to Deny the Emergency Injunction against the Plaintiff.

Motion

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

Your Honour,

The Defence moves the Court to reconsider the modified Emergency Injunction that was granted.

In previous cases, Emergency Injunctions were denied on the basis that the existence of a lawsuit is not in and of itself proof of a risk of asset dissipation.

In FCR 25, the Court ruled that "The existence of a lawsuit is not in of itself proof of a risk of asset dissipation." when responding to the Plaintiff's motion for an Emergency Injunction on the basis of being defamed and having serious harm caused to them.

In FCR 131, the Court ruled that "A lawsuit in of itself is not evidence of a risk of asset flight nor can this Court assume mal-intent from a party properly represented by Counsel," in response to the Plaintiff requesting an Emergency Injunction on the basis of the value of the prayer being particularly high.

In FCR 135, the Court granted an Emergency Injunction after the Plaintiff argued that the Defendant's failure "to make any monthly interest payments on either loan and is now in default on both agreements" makes the risk of the Defendant transferring, hiding, or dissipating assets legitimate. Considering how the Plaintiff did not make any arguments regarding the risk of the Defendants transferring, hiding, or dissipating assets in the original Motion For Emergency Injunction, the Defense believes that the Emergency Injunction should not be granted at all.

Furthermore, considering the Defendant, Jakkuwu's profession as a Real Estate agent, the Defence argues that granting an Emergency Injunction may, in fact, harm the Defendant's ability to pay the Plaintiff.

If the Court upholds the Emergency Injunction, then the Defence would like to move for the Court to reduce the amount granted in the Emergency Injunction.

In DCR 92, the Court ruled that Emergency Injunctions should only be granted for Compensatory damages. The Defence believes the current Emergency Injunction includes:
-$386,880 in Compensatory Damages
-$100,000 in Punitive Damages
-$50,000 in Consequential Damages
Considering that the precedent has been to not consider Damages outside of Compensatory Damages due to the risk of an arbitrary amount being frozen, the Defence believes that the same reasoning should apply to this case. Therefore, the Defence requests that the Emergency Injunction be reduced to $386,880.

 

[Muggy21]

Thank you for the timely response Your Honour.

The Defendants accept the Court's decision to Deny the Emergency Injunction against the Plaintiff.

Motion

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

Your Honour,

The Defence moves the Court to reconsider the modified Emergency Injunction that was granted.

In previous cases, Emergency Injunctions were denied on the basis that the existence of a lawsuit is not in and of itself proof of a risk of asset dissipation.

In FCR 25, the Court ruled that "The existence of a lawsuit is not in of itself proof of a risk of asset dissipation." when responding to the Plaintiff's motion for an Emergency Injunction on the basis of being defamed and having serious harm caused to them.

In FCR 131, the Court ruled that "A lawsuit in of itself is not evidence of a risk of asset flight nor can this Court assume mal-intent from a party properly represented by Counsel," in response to the Plaintiff requesting an Emergency Injunction on the basis of the value of the prayer being particularly high.

In FCR 135, the Court granted an Emergency Injunction after the Plaintiff argued that the Defendant's failure "to make any monthly interest payments on either loan and is now in default on both agreements" makes the risk of the Defendant transferring, hiding, or dissipating assets legitimate. Considering how the Plaintiff did not make any arguments regarding the risk of the Defendants transferring, hiding, or dissipating assets in the original Motion For Emergency Injunction, the Defense believes that the Emergency Injunction should not be granted at all.

Furthermore, considering the Defendant, Jakkuwu's profession as a Real Estate agent, the Defence argues that granting an Emergency Injunction may, in fact, harm the Defendant's ability to pay the Plaintiff.

If the Court upholds the Emergency Injunction, then the Defence would like to move for the Court to reduce the amount granted in the Emergency Injunction.

In DCR 92, the Court ruled that Emergency Injunctions should only be granted for Compensatory damages. The Defence believes the current Emergency Injunction includes:
-$386,880 in Compensatory Damages
-$100,000 in Punitive Damages
-$50,000 in Consequential Damages
Considering that the precedent has been to not consider Damages outside of Compensatory Damages due to the risk of an arbitrary amount being frozen, the Defence believes that the same reasoning should apply to this case. Therefore, the Defence requests that the Emergency Injunction be reduced to $386,880.

@ko531 48 hours to offer a response

 

[ko531]

Motion

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

Your Honor,

The cases cited by the defense in their motion to reconsider has no bearing on this case. The first, [2026] FCR 25, was a defamation case while the second, [2025] FCR 131, is a breach of contract case. Both of these cases the plaintiffs were asking for compensation over breaches of law. The reasoning for both of these emergency injunctions was for asset flight due to the lawsuit. The emergency injunction in this case is very different.

The court usually grants emergency injunctions freezing assets like the one in this case for two reasons, the first is in property contention cases and the second is in cases where actual risk of asset flight exist like the case cited by the defense [2025] FCR 135. This case in actuality fits both reasons for such an emergency injunction to be granted.

In [2026] FCR 10, Your Honor Muggy21 makes such a ruling stating that "In our common law, irreparable harm is an injury that can’t be reasonably remedied with a monetary award. See the following cases where an EI was used to ensure a party did not abscond with contested assets:" in which cases [2026] DCR 3, [2025] FCR 135, [2025] FCR 136 and [2025] DCR 108 are cited as examples.

This very case is an asset contention case like all the cases previously listed. I, as the plaintiff, am alleging that both defendants helped commission theft by taking assets and property of mine that they had no right to take. There is a contention for both if property was stolen and if so, who has a legal claim to such property. Therefore, assets pertaining to the monetary value of the property in question should at the very least be frozen.

Adding on to this, the very nature of the claim provides a possible risk of asset flight and not the lawsuit itself. When looking at a claim for theft, we are already looking at a possible attempt to permanently deprive another of property or assets. This already illustrates an attempt by the defense to withhold assets from me, the plaintiff. It is then reason to believe that if done once, such an attempt to withhold is to happen again with possible asset flight in case they were to lose this lawsuit. Therefore, all punitive, consequential and compensatory damages should be frozen to prevent such a risk of harm as Emergency Injunctions are designed to do.

 

[ko531]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

Your Honor,

You issued an order for the defense to file their answer to complaint within 48 hours. This order was issued on May 3rd at 7:33pm CST. As of today, May 5th, at 7:33pm that deadline has passed. The defense has failed to file their answer to complaint in compliance to this deadline

Rule 3.6 in the Court Rules and Procedure allows for motions of default judgement if the defense fails to either confirm or deny all facts prior to the end of discovery. What the defense has done is much more extreme by failing to even submit an answer which is integral to understand what facts are in contention entering discovery. Without this answer to complaint, we cannot properly enter discovery, and this trial has been at the very least delayed.

Even though Rule 3.6 addresses affirming or denying facts prior to the end of discovery, I believe this rule still applies as this failure by the defense is in the same nature yet more extreme. We ask the court to grant this motion and issue default judgement against the defense for their failure to submit a defense in the courts giving timeline.

 

[Incarnation__]

Motion

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

Your Honor,

The cases cited by the defense in their motion to reconsider has no bearing on this case. The first, [2026] FCR 25, was a defamation case while the second, [2025] FCR 131, is a breach of contract case. Both of these cases the plaintiffs were asking for compensation over breaches of law. The reasoning for both of these emergency injunctions was for asset flight due to the lawsuit. The emergency injunction in this case is very different.

The court usually grants emergency injunctions freezing assets like the one in this case for two reasons, the first is in property contention cases and the second is in cases where actual risk of asset flight exist like the case cited by the defense [2025] FCR 135. This case in actuality fits both reasons for such an emergency injunction to be granted.

In [2026] FCR 10, Your Honor Muggy21 makes such a ruling stating that "In our common law, irreparable harm is an injury that can’t be reasonably remedied with a monetary award. See the following cases where an EI was used to ensure a party did not abscond with contested assets:" in which cases [2026] DCR 3, [2025] FCR 135, [2025] FCR 136 and [2025] DCR 108 are cited as examples.

This very case is an asset contention case like all the cases previously listed. I, as the plaintiff, am alleging that both defendants helped commission theft by taking assets and property of mine that they had no right to take. There is a contention for both if property was stolen and if so, who has a legal claim to such property. Therefore, assets pertaining to the monetary value of the property in question should at the very least be frozen.

Adding on to this, the very nature of the claim provides a possible risk of asset flight and not the lawsuit itself. When looking at a claim for theft, we are already looking at a possible attempt to permanently deprive another of property or assets. This already illustrates an attempt by the defense to withhold assets from me, the plaintiff. It is then reason to believe that if done once, such an attempt to withhold is to happen again with possible asset flight in case they were to lose this lawsuit. Therefore, all punitive, consequential and compensatory damages should be frozen to prevent such a risk of harm as Emergency Injunctions are designed to do.

Your Honour,

The Defence would like to state that due to the delay in the response from the Court to the Motion to Reconsider, the Defence was unable to file an Answer due to the fact that the ruling on the motion may affect how the Defence would file their Answer. The Motion to Reconsider was filed less than two hours after the Defence was given the Deadline to submit an Answer, and there has been no response over 48 hours later. As such, the Defence believed it was reasonable to delay the Answer.

In addition, under Rule 6.6 in the Court Rules and Procedure, it is clearly stated that the intent of deadlines is to keep cases progressing and not stagnating. The Defence believes that its timely response to the Emergency Injunction followed by the delay to receive an Answer shows that the Defence's lateness in filing an Answer would not have had a negative effect on the progression of the case.

Furthermore, Rule 3.6 explicitly cites that all affirmations and denials on facts must be made prior to the end of discovery. It does not state that the punishment for missing the deadline will be a default on the facts of the case. This is because, under Rule 3.4, it is clearly stated that at any time during the course of discovery, the defendant may amend their answer. Given that we are not even in Discovery, there is no reason to believe that the Defence will fail to include the necessary information before the end of Discovery.

The Defence would finally like to add that their Answer is already ready, and that they will be able to submit within 24 hours if the Court wishes the Defence to do so, even if the prior motion is unfairly ignored.

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

Your Honor,

You issued an order for the defense to file their answer to complaint within 48 hours. This order was issued on May 3rd at 7:33pm CST. As of today, May 5th, at 7:33pm that deadline has passed. The defense has failed to file their answer to complaint in compliance to this deadline

Rule 3.6 in the Court Rules and Procedure allows for motions of default judgement if the defense fails to either confirm or deny all facts prior to the end of discovery. What the defense has done is much more extreme by failing to even submit an answer which is integral to understand what facts are in contention entering discovery. Without this answer to complaint, we cannot properly enter discovery, and this trial has been at the very least delayed.

Even though Rule 3.6 addresses affirming or denying facts prior to the end of discovery, I believe this rule still applies as this failure by the defense is in the same nature yet more extreme. We ask the court to grant this motion and issue default judgement against the defense for their failure to submit a defense in the courts giving timeline.

DENIED, this is extraordinary relief and defense counsel has not acted in such a manner to show this Court that it has no intention of ever mounting a defense.

 

[Muggy21]

Thank you for the timely response Your Honour.

The Defendants accept the Court's decision to Deny the Emergency Injunction against the Plaintiff.

Motion

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

Your Honour,

The Defence moves the Court to reconsider the modified Emergency Injunction that was granted.

In previous cases, Emergency Injunctions were denied on the basis that the existence of a lawsuit is not in and of itself proof of a risk of asset dissipation.

In FCR 25, the Court ruled that "The existence of a lawsuit is not in of itself proof of a risk of asset dissipation." when responding to the Plaintiff's motion for an Emergency Injunction on the basis of being defamed and having serious harm caused to them.

In FCR 131, the Court ruled that "A lawsuit in of itself is not evidence of a risk of asset flight nor can this Court assume mal-intent from a party properly represented by Counsel," in response to the Plaintiff requesting an Emergency Injunction on the basis of the value of the prayer being particularly high.

In FCR 135, the Court granted an Emergency Injunction after the Plaintiff argued that the Defendant's failure "to make any monthly interest payments on either loan and is now in default on both agreements" makes the risk of the Defendant transferring, hiding, or dissipating assets legitimate. Considering how the Plaintiff did not make any arguments regarding the risk of the Defendants transferring, hiding, or dissipating assets in the original Motion For Emergency Injunction, the Defense believes that the Emergency Injunction should not be granted at all.

Furthermore, considering the Defendant, Jakkuwu's profession as a Real Estate agent, the Defence argues that granting an Emergency Injunction may, in fact, harm the Defendant's ability to pay the Plaintiff.

If the Court upholds the Emergency Injunction, then the Defence would like to move for the Court to reduce the amount granted in the Emergency Injunction.

In DCR 92, the Court ruled that Emergency Injunctions should only be granted for Compensatory damages. The Defence believes the current Emergency Injunction includes:
-$386,880 in Compensatory Damages
-$100,000 in Punitive Damages
-$50,000 in Consequential Damages
Considering that the precedent has been to not consider Damages outside of Compensatory Damages due to the risk of an arbitrary amount being frozen, the Defence believes that the same reasoning should apply to this case. Therefore, the Defence requests that the Emergency Injunction be reduced to $386,880.

DENIED on reconsideration. The cases cited hurt Defense's theory. In all of those FCR cases, the mere allegation of a debt (a judgment) is not itself evidence. An EI is only there to temporarily resolve an ongoing harm or a harm which will become irreversible. No precedent cited supports Defense's novel theory.

 

[Incarnation__]

DENIED on reconsideration. The cases cited hurt Defense's theory. In all of those FCR cases, the mere allegation of a debt (a judgment) is not itself evidence. An EI is only there to temporarily resolve an ongoing harm or a harm which will become irreversible. No precedent cited supports Defense's novel theory.

Your Honour,

May the Defence make a response to the Plaintiff's Response to Motion to Reconsider regarding the Emergency Injunction before submitting an Answer to the Complaint?

 

[Muggy21]

Your Honour,

May the Defence make a response to the Plaintiff's Response to Motion to Reconsider regarding the Emergency Injunction before submitting an Answer to the Complaint?

No, but there's nothing stopping you from including that in your Answer.

 

[Incarnation__]

No, but there's nothing stopping you from including that in your Answer.

Your Honour,

Apologies for my inexperience, but just to clarify, will the Defence be allowed to file a new Motion to Reconsider regarding the Emergency Injunction due to the emergence of new information due to the Plaintiff's responses?

 

[Muggy21]

Your Honour,

Apologies for my inexperience, but just to clarify, will the Defence be allowed to file a new Motion to Reconsider regarding the Emergency Injunction due to the emergence of new information due to the Plaintiff's responses?

What's this new information? You generally can't file a motion to reconsider against a motion to reconsider, we'd never get anywhere.

 

[ko531]

Your Honor,

I ask that you please provide a timeframe for the court on when the defenses Answer to complaint is due as the original deadline has already passed.

 

[Muggy21]

@Incarnation__ Where's your Answer at. You requested 24 hours at 12:36AM EST, I'm assuming you have something for us?

 

[Incarnation__]

@Incarnation__ Where's your Answer at. You requested 24 hours at 12:36AM EST, I'm assuming you have something for us?

It will be posted within 24 hours, now that I have received my answer to the motion. Thank you for your patience.

 

[Muggy21]

It will be posted within 24 hours, now that I have received my answer to the motion. Thank you for your patience.

If you fail to post an answer by May 8th, 2026 at 9pm EST, I'll proceed in default judgement.

 

[Incarnation__]

What's this new information? You generally can't file a motion to reconsider against a motion to reconsider, we'd never get anywhere.

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff cites from FCR 10 that "In our common law, irreparable harm is an injury that can’t be reasonably remedied with a monetary award. See the following cases where an EI was used to ensure a party did not abscond with contested assets." However, in this case, the Plaintiff is seeking only an Emergency Injunction in Monetary sums, which directly contradicts the principle that an EI should be used to ensure a party does not abscond with contested assets.

Earlier on, the Plaintiff also states that "While this is possible in all lawsuits, what are the chances that a citizen like me would ditch? A citizen who is currently on the court and has served on the court for around a combined 17 months and has active businesses that are over 3 years old on the server. The odds of any citizen with this level of attachment to the server to just up and leave over a lawsuit are slim to none." The Defence believes this sentiment also applies to Incarnation__, who has 26D of playtime in the last 3 months, and is an active politican within Redmont.

My apologies for being stuck in the discussion of the Emergency Injunction; however, the Defence believes it was important to exhaust all arguments due to the large Sum being frozen.

 

[ko531]

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff cites from FCR 10 that "In our common law, irreparable harm is an injury that can’t be reasonably remedied with a monetary award. See the following cases where an EI was used to ensure a party did not abscond with contested assets." However, in this case, the Plaintiff is seeking only an Emergency Injunction in Monetary sums, which directly contradicts the principle that an EI should be used to ensure a party does not abscond with contested assets.

Earlier on, the Plaintiff also states that "While this is possible in all lawsuits, what are the chances that a citizen like me would ditch? A citizen who is currently on the court and has served on the court for around a combined 17 months and has active businesses that are over 3 years old on the server. The odds of any citizen with this level of attachment to the server to just up and leave over a lawsuit are slim to none." The Defence believes this sentiment also applies to Incarnation__, who has 26D of playtime in the last 3 months, and is an active politican within Redmont.

My apologies for being stuck in the discussion of the Emergency Injunction; however, the Defence believes it was important to exhaust all arguments due to the large Sum being frozen.

Objection

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

The court rules and years of precedent are clear. There may only be one Motion to Reconsider per decision with all arguments in one post. It is said in the Motions Guide that "Only one motion to reconsider can be made per decision, with all arguments included in a single submission." This guide is of course an extension of the court rules and procedures

I ask that the court strike this disguised attempt for a second motion to reconsider on the same decision.

 

[Muggy21]

Objection

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

The court rules and years of precedent are clear. There may only be one Motion to Reconsider per decision with all arguments in one post. It is said in the Motions Guide that "Only one motion to reconsider can be made per decision, with all arguments included in a single submission." This guide is of course an extension of the court rules and procedures

I ask that the court strike this disguised attempt for a second motion to reconsider on the same decision.

SUSTAINED, Defendant didn't offer a new argument or offer any new facts that aren't borne from this case or cited case law.

 

[Incarnation__]

Answer to Complaint

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

Ko531
Plaintiff

v.

Incarnation__ and Jakkuwu
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that the farm plot located at Wl-f091b was raided and every one of the buff plants was taken, NOTING that P-006 is only a screenshot of an empty chamber with a dirt floor.
2. NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that the only people with access to the farm were Ms. Georgia and Incarnation__, NOTING that P-001 is only a screenshot of a Discord conversation in which Jakkuwu claims that (Incarnation__) is the only "other" person added to the plot.
3. AFFIRMS that the block located at 1381, -30, 1969 was broken, but NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that the broken block gave Jakkuwu access to buffs.
4. AFFIRMS
5. AFFIRMS that an article was published, NOTING that the existence of "the raid" is still in question.
6. DENIES that the farm plot has an area of 3224 based on the submitted evidence, NOTING that the BlueMap has the plot area listed as 3168 blocks (P-008).
7. NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that the "buff area" has 5 floors, NOTING that there is no submitted evidence regarding the number of existing floors.
8-12 AFFIRMS that the listed items can be bought from the Buff Dealer for those prices, NOTING that the Buff Dealer does not buy those items for the listed prices back, and that those values do not necessarily reflect the market value of those items.

II. DEFENCES
1. There is insufficient evidence proving that Buff Plants existed on the aforementioned plot in the first place.
2. There is insufficient evidence that either Defendant stole any buff plants or helped anyone steal any buff plants from the plot.
3. The only evidence submitted so far is screenshots of Discord messages, screenshots of an empty chamber, a news article, and logs that state that 3224 blocks were "affected". The Plaintiff is currently reliant on hearsay and speculation, which causes the case to lack substance.
4. The Plaintiff used poor sources of evidence to prove the facts they are claiming. This is evidenced by fact 6, in which the Plaintiff used a log stating the number of blocks "affected" to determine the area of the farm plot. This has made it impossible for the Defence to determine the validity of facts 1, 2, 3, and 7.

Evidence:

Spoiler: P-008

View attachment 81815

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 8th day of May, 2026.

 

[Incarnation__]

Your Honour,

I mistakenly submitted the evidence incorrectly. May I resubmit the evidence so that it is correctly titled D-001 and is just a picture rather than an attachment?