Lawsuit: Pending Pepecuu v. MasterCaelen [2026] FCR 24

[asexualdinosaur]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Pepecuu
Plaintiff

v.

MasterCaelen
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

MasterCaelen and Pepecuu entered into a loan contract on 3/3/2026 for $1.7 million which outlined terms where MasterCaelen had agreed to pay back the sum with interest.

The first payment was due one calendar month from the date of the agreement, as such the due date would be 4/3/2026

P-001 § 3.1 - MasterCaelen has not only defaulted on the loan by failing to make a payment, the defendant also violated the terms of the agreement by transferring a plot held under collateral ( C639 see id. § 2.1 ), the defendant is also ‘deported’.

I. PARTIES
1. Pepecuu (Plaintiff)
2. Mastercaelen (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. 3/3/2026 MasterCaelen (“Borrower”) and Pepecuu (“Lender”) entered into the Mortgage Agreement P-001, P-003.
2. 3/3/2026 Plaintiff sent the Defendant $1,700,000 P-004
3. Plot C639 was considered collateral under § 2.1
4. The Defendant transferred plot C639 to another citizen P-002
5. The plot C639 was transferred on or before 3/25/2026 P-002
6. The Plaintiff did not consent to a transfer of any properties
7. By transferring plot C639 the Defendant triggered a default in line with P-001 § 3.1
8. The Defendant owed payments of $488,750.00 per calendar month for 4 months P-001 § 1.3
9. The Defendant failed to make their first payment due 4/3/2026
10. The total sum of the agreed loan would have been $1,955,000.00
11. The Defendant in failing to make payment, triggered a default in line with P-001 § 3.1
12. The Plaintiff is entitled to acceleration of the entire unpaid balance of the loan, foreclosure, and other applicable remedies under P-001 § 3.2
13. The Defendant is deported P-005

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
Under the RCCA
1. Art. VI § 1 Breach of Contract ‘fails to perform obligations under a valid and enforceable contract without lawful excuse.’, where the Defendant had failed to submit payment in violation of P-001 § 3.1 AND the Defendant had transferred a collateralized property ( C639 ) in violation of P-001 § 3.1
2. Art. VI § 1 defines this violation as a “Strict Liability Violation”, Art. II § 9.4 ‘require the plaintiff to prove only that the prohibited act occurred and caused harm; the defendant’s intent or negligence is not relevant to establishing liability.’, P-002 will show that this violation did occur as the plot displayed ( C639 ), was agreed collateral in P-001 § 2.1 and was transferred now belonging to ‘PurgePlanet’ in direct violation of P-001 § 3.1
3. Art. VI § 1 offers its remedy as “No Fixed Remedy”, Art. II § 7.12 ‘No Fixed Remedy means no specific remedy is prescribed for the violation, and the plaintiff may request any remedy available under this Code, with the court determining the appropriate remedy based on the circumstances of the case.’ AND Art. II § 3.3 ‘This Code does not limit actions arising from breach of contract where the contract itself provides specific remedies not otherwise covered by this Code.’ as such we seek other applicable damages.
4. Art. III § 6 ‘Liquidated damages are paid out in the case of a breach of contract, and are pre-estimated and spelled out in advance when the contract is signed.’ under P-001 § 3.2 the contract defined the remedies available upon default. ‘Accelerate the entire unpaid balance of the Loan; Foreclose on The Properties in accordance with Redmont mortgage law; Pursue any other remedies available under applicable law.’
5. Art. III § 3 ‘Punitive damages are damages awarded against a person to punish them for their outrageous conduct and to deter them and others like them from similar conduct in the future.’, the Defendant by transferring a collateralized plot had not only violated the terms of the contract but had acted outrageously in direct violation of the terms outlined P-001 § 3.3 in transferring the plot ( C639 )
6. lucaaasserole v Naezaratheus et al. had been awarded full punitive damages for failing to act in good faith and fair dealings.
7. ZxRiptide v. MasterCaelen The defendant in double-mortgaging properties with ZxRiptide and Jakkuwu created conditions that endangers the mortgage agreement with the Plaintiff and showcases a general lack of good faith when it comes to creating contracts, which is in violation of Contracts Act § 12 'There exists an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in every contract covered by this Act, whether or not expressly stated. This covenant shall be read into contracts to ensure that the parties act with honesty, integrity, and fairness in all aspects of their contractual relationship.'

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Liquidated damages in the form of $1,955,000.00 as the accelerated unpaid balance; OR if unable to be fulfilled in full, the plaintiff seeks the collateralized properties listed P-001 § 2.1 to recover the value of the loan.
2. Punitive damages in the form of $400,000 for the transfer of a collateralized plot, and not dealing in good faith when creating the contract as the collateral was double-mortgaged with multiple parties.
3. Legal Fees in the form of 30% of the case’s value.

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 3rd day of APRIL 2026

Motion

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

Your honour, the defendant is long-term/permanently deported (P-005) and as such retains no rights within the Commonwealth of Redmont. We ask the court to move forward to default judgement and verdict rendered without their appearance or representative.

I cite Ligthiago v. FuriousPaladin where then Judge Matthew100x states ‘I will be writing the verdict shortly since according to staff, permanently banned players do not have a right to representation.’, gsse v. Commonwealth Judge Unseated Duke stated ‘DC staff has been clear that deported players have no rights in Redmont.‘

This position from staff has had a recent clarification in discord Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games

Where the defendant's position is a ‘long deport’ - ‘Legally: May not retain legal representation or represent themselves in the courts (public defence may represent procedure, not the individual).’, ‘Considered 'Permanently Deported' under current legislation.’

Motion

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

Your honour,

In order to protect the interests of the Plaintiff and ensure that the issue is properly adjudicated upon, we request that the plots outlined in P-001 § 2.1 aside from C639 (as it was already transferred) to be frozen.

We also acknowledge that some of the same property (29 plots) are in contention in Lawsuit: Pending - ZxRiptide v. MasterCaelen [2026] FCR 21 as such we seek to ensure it is not transferred without the consideration of our complaint.

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: P-004

Spoiler: P-005

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[ToadKing]

Your Honour,

I request leave of this court to submit a brief, in a similar manner to the amicus brief submitted in ZxRiptide v. MasterCaelen [2026] FCR 21, to address the nature of the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff.

I possess information which is essential for this Court to reach an informed Verdict. I have no material interest in this case. This brief shall only regard facts. However, due to the nature of this information, a potential Privacy Act issue arises.

Therefore, consistent with the actions of the court in Brick and Browse Inc. v. Pepecuu [2026] FCR 8, where the court granted a request by the Secretary of Commerce to submit information in a amicus brief within a sidebar, I request the same, in the interests of justice.

 

[Franciscus]

Howdy folks. I will be the Judicial Officer on this case. Give me a few to review everything.

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honour,

I request leave of this court to submit a brief, in a similar manner to the amicus brief submitted in ZxRiptide v. MasterCaelen [2026] FCR 21, to address the nature of the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff.

I possess information which is essential for this Court to reach an informed Verdict. I have no material interest in this case. This brief shall only regard facts. However, due to the nature of this information, a potential Privacy Act issue arises.

Therefore, consistent with the actions of the court in Brick and Browse Inc. v. Pepecuu [2026] FCR 8, where the court granted a request by the Secretary of Commerce to submit information in a amicus brief within a sidebar, I request the same, in the interests of justice.

Granted.

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

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

Your honour,

In order to protect the interests of the Plaintiff and ensure that the issue is properly adjudicated upon, we request that the plots outlined in P-001 § 2.1 aside from C639 (as it was already transferred) to be frozen.

We also acknowledge that some of the same property (29 plots) are in contention in Lawsuit: Pending - ZxRiptide v. MasterCaelen [2026] FCR 21 as such we seek to ensure it is not transferred without the consideration of our complaint.

The Court does not see Exhibit P-001 as having been declared (such as in a spoiler). What exhibit are you referring to here?

 

[Franciscus]

The Court does not see Exhibit P-001 as having been declared (such as in a spoiler). What exhibit are you referring to here?

Please disregard, it is an attachment. I see it now. In the future, please explicitly declare your exhibits in writing.

 

[ToadKing]

Granted.

Would Your Honour be so kind as to create the sidebar within a forum DM due to this counsel's technical disability?

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

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

Your honour,

In order to protect the interests of the Plaintiff and ensure that the issue is properly adjudicated upon, we request that the plots outlined in P-001 § 2.1 aside from C639 (as it was already transferred) to be frozen.

We also acknowledge that some of the same property (29 plots) are in contention in Lawsuit: Pending - ZxRiptide v. MasterCaelen [2026] FCR 21 as such we seek to ensure it is not transferred without the consideration of our complaint.

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Any of following plots are frozen by Order of the Federal Court, provided that they are presently not owned by MasterCaelen.

• C119, Reveille, Redmont.
• C143, Reveille, Redmont.
• C144, Reveille, Redmont.
• C145, Reveille, Redmont.
• C146, Reveille, Redmont.
• C147, Reveille, Redmont.
• C148, Reveille, Redmont.
• C149, Reveille, Redmont.
• C150, Reveille, Redmont.
• C366, Reveille, Redmont.
• C368, Reveille, Redmont.
• C369, Reveille, Redmont.
• C370, Reveille, Redmont.
• C371, Reveille, Redmont.
• C589, Reveille, Redmont.
• C614, Reveille, Redmont.
• C635, Reveille, Redmont.
• C636, Reveille, Redmont.
• C637, Reveille, Redmont.
• C638, Reveille, Redmont.
• C639, Reveille, Redmont.
• C643, Reveille, Redmont.
• S002, Reveille, Redmont.
• S016, Reveille, Redmont.
• S041, Reveille, Redmont.
• S042, Reveille, Redmont.
• S043, Reveille, Redmont.
• S044, Reveille, Redmont.
• S109, Reveille, Redmont.
• S117, Reveille, Redmont.

Plots listed above not in possession of Defendant MasterCaelen at the time of the issuance of this injunction are not subject to this freeze. Any transfers, evictions, seizures, or other possession change of the plots subject to this freeze are void if such transfer, eviction, seizure, or other possession change of the plots is null and void unless upon express permission of the Federal Court.

In the Federal Court,
Judge Multiman155

 

[Franciscus]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE — JOINDER AND CONSOLIDATION

The Federal Court notes, as does Plaintiff, that some of the same plots sought in this case are “in contention in Lawsuit: Pending - ZxRiptide v. MasterCaelen [2026] FCR 21”. In requesting an emergency injunction, Plaintiff stated that Plaintiff sought to “ensure [the real property] is not transferred without the consideration of [Pepecuu]’s complaint”.

The Redmont Civil Code Act permits Joinder of cases when disposing of a case without a party present would impair the ability of that party to defend their lawful interests, or when there are common questions of fact:

6. Joinder and Consolidation
(1) The court may order the joinder of additional parties where:
(a) Complete relief cannot be granted without the additional party; or
(b) The additional party claims an interest in the subject matter such that disposing of the case without them may impair their ability to protect that interest.

(2) The court may consolidate multiple proceedings involving common questions of law or facts in the interest of judicial efficiency.

(RCCA, Part IV, Section 6).

The Court understands that the Plaintiff has chosen to file separately, rather than seek leave of the Court to intervene in ZxRiptide v. MasterCaelen [2026] FCR 21. Nevertheless, the Federal Court sees that there may be common questions of fact. This case’s Plaintiff seeks punitive damages in part on the factual theory that “the collateral was double-mortgaged with multiple parties” (Compl., Section IV.2). This is explicitly with respect to “ZxRiptide v. MasterCaelen”, where Plaintiff alleges that defendant engaged “in double-mortgaging properties with ZxRiptide and Jakkuwu” (Compl., Section III.7). The Court thus contemplates whether Plaintiff here should be joined to that case and whether cases ought be consolidated.

This Order to Show Cause orders the Plaintiff to “demonstrate why a contemplated action should not be taken“ (Regulations of the Federal Court, Section 10.1). Specifically, the Federal Court orders the Plaintiff ( CC: @asexualdinosaur ) to show cause, within 72 hours, as to why the Federal Court should not consolidate this case with ZxRiptide v. MasterCaelen [2026] FCR 21 and so join this case’s Plaintiff as a co-Plaintiff in that case.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE — JOINDER AND CONSOLIDATION

The Federal Court notes, as does Plaintiff, that some of the same plots sought in this case are “in contention in Lawsuit: Pending - ZxRiptide v. MasterCaelen [2026] FCR 21”. In requesting an emergency injunction, Plaintiff stated that Plaintiff sought to “ensure [the real property] is not transferred without the consideration of [Pepecuu]’s complaint”.

The Redmont Civil Code Act permits Joinder of cases when disposing of a case without a party present would impair the ability of that party to defend their lawful interests, or when there are common questions of fact:

(RCCA, Part IV, Section 6).

The Court understands that the Plaintiff has chosen to file separately, rather than seek leave of the Court to intervene in ZxRiptide v. MasterCaelen [2026] FCR 21. Nevertheless, the Federal Court sees that there may be common questions of fact. This case’s Plaintiff seeks punitive damages in part on the factual theory that “the collateral was double-mortgaged with multiple parties” (Compl., Section IV.2). This is explicitly with respect to “ZxRiptide v. MasterCaelen”, where Plaintiff alleges that defendant engaged “in double-mortgaging properties with ZxRiptide and Jakkuwu” (Compl., Section III.7). The Court thus contemplates whether Plaintiff here should be joined to that case and whether cases ought be consolidated.

This Order to Show Cause orders the Plaintiff to “demonstrate why a contemplated action should not be taken“ (Regulations of the Federal Court, Section 10.1). Specifically, the Federal Court orders the Plaintiff ( CC: @asexualdinosaur ) to show cause, within 72 hours, as to why the Federal Court should not consolidate this case with ZxRiptide v. MasterCaelen [2026] FCR 21 and so join this case’s Plaintiff as a co-Plaintiff in that case.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

Your honour,

If you as the presiding officer of both trials see it fit to enjoin them I will not object to your interest in ‘judicial efficiency’, that being said I personally envision this as a simple matter that could be handled more efficiently separately.

In P-001 (The contract file attached to the filing labeled P-001.pdf) § 2.1, we see that the Defendant had given the Plaintiff “First-priority” for the mortgage lien, and as the contract was created before other parties had been promised their ‘share’ we assert that we’re doubly assured to receive our share of the assets. -- Which is also why we had requested the EI.

Insofar as the 'double-mortgage' dispute, and as it effects the extent of the requested damages- If your honor were to find these contracts were never created and the parties themselves are lying under oath of the court then surely the damage they've caused the court should be reflected upon in a perjury charge against them, a Contempt of Court, potentially opening themselves up to fraud charges, and conduct strikes may arise.
The validity of the contracts themselves should not be under dispute insofar as the damages we're requesting. If the court were to realize later that the parties had provided false contracts and damages were awarded 'incorrectly' then the party that had deceived the court should be liable for those damages.


Should your honour find that not compelling, as I stated prior we would not object to a joinder.

Thank you.

Would Your Honour be so kind as to create the sidebar within a forum DM due to this counsel's technical disability?

Your honour,

It is my understanding that this information while being protected by the Privacy Act, is actually information my client is already privy to- though I am not certain and would seek your honor to verify with Sir @ToadKing.

As such, we request to be party to the brief being offered by Sir ToadKing so that we may review it as well.

Thank you.

 

[Franciscus]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER OF JOINDER AND CONSOLIDATION

The Court issued an Order to Show Cause (Post No. 9) contemplating joinder of the Plaintiff to and consolidation of this case with ZxRiptide v. MasterCaelen [2026] FCR 21. The Court expressed concerns regarding potential common questions of fact, potential disposing of a case without an interested party present, and judicial efficiency.

Plaintiff, in reply, stated that they "will not object" and "would not object to a joinder". Plaintiff, however, did offer arguments that this case was simpler than the case it would be merged into, that the contract alleged in this case was created before any alleged contract in the ZxRiptide v. MasterCaelen, and that the Court could simply seek to sanction those who would falsely plead existence of a contract after disposing with this case.

The Court does not find these points persuasive. As to the point regarding judicial efficiency, requiring a third thread to sort out the ultimate liability at the end of the day as was done in in re: S104/C745 [2025] FCR 124 would harm judicial efficency, not improve it. As to the point regarding the date of the contract alleged in this case, the Court has not engaged in fact-finding as to the existence of the contract, and it would be prejudicial to rule such at this stage. As to the point regarding simply accepting allegations made in other cases and sanctioning those making the claims if those individuals are lying, the Court gives a longer answer.

In RaiTheGuy v. Department of Commerce [2025] FCR 29, the Court analyzed a situation where that case's Plaintiff had made allegations that a third party had committed a tort:

Plaintiff has charged a third-party in committing market manipulation. “[J]udicial consistency requires each case to be evaluated on its own merits at the time of its ruling.” (see Appeal: Denied - [2024] FCR 102 - Appeal). That third party has not been found liable in committing market manipulation. For this court to assume market manipulation in the event that the court in [2025] FCR 30 does not, would lead to judicial inconsistency. Thus, the court cannot adjudicate the matter on the assumption that the third-party is civilly liable for market manipulation. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot meet their burden in proving third-party misrepresentation.

(RaiTheGuy v. Department of Commerce [2025] FCR 29, Verdict, Section III.10).

In that case, the Court stated that it could not adjudicate the matter "cannot adjudicate the matter on the assumption that the third-party is civilly liable". In this case, we have a slightly different scenario: a third-party has made a claim about this case's defendant. But a similar logic applies: for this court to assume the factual allegations made in another case's complaint as true, even as that case is still pending, could lead to judicial inconsistency. When such an event occurs, the Court cannot find that such a fact is true merely because it is alleged elsewhere; this Court cannot adjudicate the matter based on assumption of how another case will go, especially when that case is live and active. As such, the Court finds unpersuasive the argument that we should rely upon mere factual allegations made by a party (or prospective party) in another case as dispositive here towards factual claims in this case's complaint.

As such, and noting the lack of objection, the Court orders as follows:

1. Pepecuu is joined as a co-Plaintiff in ZxRiptide v. MasterCaelen [2026] FCR 21. Pepecuu is entitled to a separate counsel from ZxRiptide, a separate complaint from ZxRiptide, and right to file cross-claims against ZxRiptide. Any cross-claims must be filed prior to the close of discovery (see: RCCA, Part IV, Section 3 regarding cross-claims).
2. This case (Pepecuu v. MasterCaelen [2026] FCR 24) is administratively consolidated with ZxRiptide v. MasterCaelen [2026] FCR 21, which shall be re-titled to account for the additional party.
3. The Court Clerk (or a judicial officer in the Court Clerk's stead) will copy the Plaintiff's complaint from this case into the consolidated case, and will provide a note regarding this merger and joinder.
4. The Emergency Injunction issued in this case shall persist until a final verdict is issued in the merged case, or until the Federal Court orders otherwise. This supercedes any other timelines prior issued.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155