Lawsuit: Pending Pepecuu v. MasterCaelen

[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.