Lawsuit: Pending KukkiNekko v. Zombie_Bro_ [2026] DCR 5

[Aboundedcomet]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


KukkiNekko
Plaintiff

v.

Zombie_Bro_
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

The Defendant had forged tokens for “Kukki’s Casino”, which can be sold to the casino for money and are intended to be used to redeem winnings, by taking the same item that the casino uses for a token and renaming it the same as the tokens. The Defendant went to the Plaintiff and claimed that their forged tokens would not redeem at the chestshop by alleging that the chestshop is not working because of a glitch (though they did not state that it was a false copy,) and they gave it to the Plaintiff to manually redeem. The Plaintiff, none the wiser, paid them the full value of the fraudulent tokens ($14,000) as if they were real tokens, not realising they were fake.

I. PARTIES
1. KukkiNekko
2. Zombie_Bro_

II. FACTS
1. The Defendant created fraudulent tokens for the Plaintiff’s casino.
2. The Defendant intended to use these fraudulent tokens to scam the Plaintiff out of $14,000.
3. The Plaintiff took the fraudulent tokens thinking they were real and paid the Defendant $14,000.
4. The Defendant never stated that the tokens were not real.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant never stated that the tokens were real and used them to fraudulently gain money from the Plaintiff, constituting fraud under the Criminal Code Act (§7 (7)).

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $14,000 in compensatory damages for the money lost by the Plaintiff.
2. $13,000 in punitive damages to discourage the Defendant from further fraudulent acts.

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: P-004

Spoiler: P-005

Spoiler: P-006

Spoiler: Proof of representation

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 13th day of January 2026

 

[Pepecuu]

Writ of Summons

@Zombie_Bro_ is required to appear before the District Court in the case of KukkiNekko v. Zombie_Bro_ [2026] DCR 5.

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.

 

[Aboundedcomet]

Motion

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

I have made an error with the filing, in fact three it should be “thinking they were real” not “thinking they were fake”.

 

[Pepecuu]

Motion

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

I have made an error with the filing, in fact three it should be “thinking they were real” not “thinking they were fake”.

Granted, you may now make the necessary amendments.

 

[Aboundedcomet]

Granted, you may now make the necessary amendments.

Amended, thank you your honour.

 

[Pepecuu]

Defendant is not present after the deadline, this a Public Defender shall be assigned shortly.

 

[Julia_]

Public Defender Program is present, Your Honour.

 

[Pepecuu]

Public Defender Program is present, Your Honour.

Thank you for your presence. The Defendant is now given 48 hours to submit an Answer to Complaint.

 

[Julia_]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE

Your Honour:
In SCR 20 [2025], the Supreme Court ruled that text logs must be corroborated by independent evidence to be admissible.

Plaintiff has not provided any independent corroborating evidence for P-001, while P-002 is only partially corroborated through P-006.

Therefore, Defence Counsel respectfully requests the Court to strike both pieces of evidence as improper.

 

[Julia_]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE

Your Honour:
In SCR 20 [2025], the Supreme Court ruled that text logs must be corroborated by independent evidence to be admissible.

Plaintiff has not provided any independent corroborating evidence for P-001, while P-002 is only partially corroborated through P-006.

Therefore, Defence Counsel respectfully requests the Court to strike both pieces of evidence as improper.

Your Honour:
Defendant respectfully requests the Court to postpone the deadline for an Answer to Complaint until after a ruling has been made on #9.