Lawsuit: In Session 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 STRUCK

Spoiler: P-002 STRUCK

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.

 

[Pepecuu]

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.

Granted.

 

[Pepecuu]

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.

Sustained, the Court hereby strikes P-001 and P-002.

Accordingly, the Court hereby requests that the Defendant submit their Answer to Complaint in the next 24 hours (1/24/26 @ 5am EST).
@Julia_ @Aboundedcomet

 

[Julia_]

Answer to Complaint

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

KukkiNekko
Plaintiff

v.

Zombie_Bro_ (Represented by the Public Defender Program)
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. AFFIRM that Defendant created the tokens; DENY that Defendant intended to use them for fraudulent purposes.
2. DENY.
3. DENY that Plaintiff paid $14,000 to Defendant; NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY that Plaintiff thought the tokens were real.
4. DENY.

II. DEFENCES
1. Plaintiff has provided insufficient evidence to prove that Defendant had fraudulent intent.
2. Plaintiff has provided insufficient evidence to prove that Defendant intended to use the tokens.
3. Plaintiff has provided insufficient evidence to prove that Plaintiff thought the tokens were real.
4. Plaintiff has provided insufficient evidence to prove that Defendant never stated the tokens were real.
5. Plaintiff paid $14,000 to an individual named "Christophern Blackwood". Defendant is not Christophern Blackwood, they are Zombie_Bro_.
6. Fraud, as defined in the Criminal Code Act, is an indictable offence and may only be pursued in Court by the Department of Justice.
7. Were this a prosecution by the Department of Justice, a charge of Fraud could not be proven as insufficient evidence has been provided to prove that Defendant knowingly or recklessly misrepresented or omitted a material fact.
8. Punitive damages do not apply as conduct by Defendant was not outrageous.

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 January 2025

 

[Pepecuu]

Discovery is now open for 5 calendar days (29/1/26 @ 2am EST). Any reasonable extensions or early closures can be granted, given its acceptance by both parties.
@Aboundedcomet @Julia_

 

[Julia_]

Your Honour,
The Defence is willing to forgo the Discovery stage if Plaintiff concurs.

 

[Pepecuu]

Your Honour,
The Defence is willing to forgo the Discovery stage if Plaintiff concurs.

Does the Plaintiff concur?
@Aboundedcomet

 

[Aboundedcomet]

The defence does not concur as of right now.

 

[Aboundedcomet]

Additional Evidence:

Spoiler: P-007

Spoiler: P-008

Spoiler: P-009

Spoiler: P-010

 

[Aboundedcomet]

Motion

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

I have submitted the same evidence twice when I mean to submit a different evidence, my apologies.

 

[Julia_]

Your Honour,
Given that new evidence has been submitted, Defendant requests a 12-hour-extension to the Discovery process.

 

[Pepecuu]

Motion

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

I have submitted the same evidence twice when I mean to submit a different evidence, my apologies.

Granted. Please make the relevant changes and notify all parties when that is completed.

 

[Pepecuu]

Your Honour,
Given that new evidence has been submitted, Defendant requests a 12-hour-extension to the Discovery process.

Granted. Deadline for discovery is now 30/1/26 @ 10am EST.

 

[Aboundedcomet]

Granted. Please make the relevant changes and notify all parties when that is completed.

Amended, I am sorry for the mistake, thank you your honor.

 

[Julia_]

Granted. Deadline for discovery is now 30/1/26 @ 10am EST.

Your Honour, Defendant respectfully requests another twelve-hour extension. It's Friday today and I'm going out.

 

[Pepecuu]

Your Honour, Defendant respectfully requests another twelve-hour extension. It's Friday today and I'm going out.

Granted. Deadline extended to 31/1/26 @ 3.30PM EST.

 

[Pepecuu]

Discovery for this case is hereby closed. The Plaintiff shall now submit their opening statements to the Court within 72 hours (6/2/26 @ 7pm EST).
@Aboundedcomet

 

[Aboundedcomet]

Opening Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

This is a clear case of fraudulent activity by the defendant, they clearly admitted (as shown in P-007 and P-009) to scamming the Plaintiff with counterfeit tokens for their own personal gain. The Defendant abused the good faith of the Plaintiff by an (successful) attempt to steal money from the Plaintiff's casino (as shown in P-003 and P-004). The Plaintiff has suffered significant financial loss because of the Defendant's. The Plaintiff wishes they are punished for their crime.

The Plaintiff wishes for $27,000 (plus any legal fees awarded by the court) to punish the Defendant and discourage further fraudulent acts.

 

[Pepecuu]

The Defendant now has 72 hours (10/2/26 @ 2pm EST) to submit their Opening Statements.
@Julia_

 

[Julia_]

Defendant respectfully request a 16-hour extension.

 

[Aboundedcomet]

The Plaintiff requests to respond to the Defendant's request.

 

[Pepecuu]

The Plaintiff requests to respond to the Defendant's request.

The Plaintiff may do so at any time within 24 hours of the Defendant's request, so this is granted.

 

[Aboundedcomet]

Defendant respectfully request a 16-hour extension.

Your honour, the Defendant has already postponed the case enough by requesting two extensions totalling 24h. This case has been going on for almost a month as of right now, so I would request that we have no more extensions in the spirit of a fast trial.

 

[Pepecuu]

Your honour, the Defendant has already postponed the case enough by requesting two extensions totalling 24h. This case has been going on for almost a month as of right now, so I would request that we have no more extensions in the spirit of a fast trial.

Although the extensions mentioned were not used by the Defendant (making them redundant), the total time granted was inconsequential compared to the standard response times granted to both parties.

Additionally, while the Court sympathises with the Plaintiff on the duration of the case so far, the Court wishes to uphold a speedy trial rather than a fast one, where unnecessary delays are mitigated or reduced, rather than the absolute time used is shortened.

Accordingly, the Court grants the extension requested by the Defendant. The new deadline for their opening statements is 12/2/26 @ 12am EST.
@Julia_

 

[Julia_]

Your Honour,
I have formally tendered my resignation from the Public Defender's Office. I will no longer be representing Defendant.

 

[Pepecuu]

Your Honour,
I have formally tendered my resignation from the Public Defender's Office. I will no longer be representing Defendant.

Thank you for your notice, the Court shall assign a new PD for the Defendant.

 

[Babysoga4real]

Morning,
I am present for the PD program. I would request to get 24 hours to read into the case and decide a course of action.

 

[Pepecuu]

Morning,
I am present for the PD program. I would request to get 24 hours to read into the case and decide a course of action.

Granted. The Defendant is given until 12/2/26 @ 9pm EST to submit their opening statements.

 

[Babysoga4real]

Opening Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

This case does not involve fraud. The Plaintiff is trying to portray this situation as a serious crime, but the evidence does not support that claim. Nothing the Plaintiff has presented proves that the Defendant intentionally scammed anyone or that there was any real misrepresentation to start with. The Plaintiff points to P-007 and P-009, claiming the Defendant “admitted” to scamming them. These messages are taken out of context and do not demonstrate any actual plan or intent to deceive the Plaintiff during the trade. Chat messages that come after an event do not reveal what someone meant beforehand. The Plaintiff also cites P-003 and P-004 as proof of financial harm, but those payments were not made to the Defendant. The money went to Christophern Blackwood, not Zombie_Bro_. You cannot claim someone caused you harm if they never received any of the money. Additionally, there is no proof that the Plaintiff relied on anything the Defendant said. In the chats, the Plaintiff expressed uncertainty but chose to complete the deal anyway. This breaks the reliance requirement for fraud as specified by law. Overall, the Plaintiff has not shown any of the necessary elements for fraud: no intentional lie, no material fact misrepresented, no legitimate reliance, and no harm caused by the Defendant. Because of this, the damages they seek do not make sense and are not supported by the evidence.

Submitted respectfully,
PD Soga

 

[Babysoga4real]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

The Defence requests the dismissal of this case in full. The Plaintiff has not provided sufficient evidence to establish fraud under §7 of the Commercial Standards Act. There is no proof of any intentional or reckless misrepresentation by the Defendant. The Plaintiff has also not shown that they relied on anything the Defendant said or that the Defendant caused any financial harm. The payments shown were made to a third party, not the Defendant. Since the basic elements of the offence lack supporting evidence, this case cannot move forward. The Plaintiff’s claims are based on assumptions and do not meet the legal standard required for an indictable offence. The Defence respectfully asks the Court to dismiss the case.