Lawsuit: In Session Two Guys Realty v. MasterCaelen [2026] FCR 43

[dodrio3]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Two Guys Realty
Plaintiff

v.

MasterCaelen
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
On the 8th of March 2026, MasterCaelen reached a loan agreement with the plaintiff, represented by Jawwku, the CEO at the time. The Defendant agreed to take on a loan of $666,000 and placed 25 plots up as collateral.

On the 16th of March, the plaintiff reminded the defendant that the loan payment was due. The Defendant failed to pay any part of the loan.

I. Parties
Two Guys Realty - Plaintiff
mastercaelen - Defendant

II. Facts

1. Around March 7–8, 2026, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a loan agreement where Plaintiff agreed to loan the Defendant $660,000.
2. The agreement was formed through written communications between the parties.
3. Defendant accepted the terms of the agreement through written messages, including statements such as “kk” and “gimme money.”
4. The terms of the loan included interest at a rate of 1% per week.
5. The agreement further provided that the interest rate would increase to 2% per week after two (2) weeks.
6. The loan included a minimum term of two (2) weeks and a maximum term of two (2) months.
7. The agreement provided that twenty-five (25) plots would serve as collateral in the event of default.
8. Defendant agreed to make weekly interest payments until full repayment of the loan.
9. Plaintiff performed his obligations under the agreement by providing the agreed loan funds.
10. Said funds were provided by directly paying the seller of plots in a transaction undertaken on behalf of Defendant.
11. As a result of said transaction, Defendant obtained ownership or control of the plots.
12. Defendant failed to make the required payments under the agreement.
13. At least one payment in the amount of approximately $6,600 became due and was not paid.
14. Plaintiff notified Defendant of the missed payment.
15. Plaintiff provided Defendant with an opportunity to cure the default, including a deadline stating: “You have until this Saturday to make the payment.”
16. Defendant failed to comply with the payment obligations within the required timeframe.
17. Defendant failed to otherwise cure the default.
18. As a result of Defendant’s failure to perform, Plaintiff declared Defendant in default under the loan agreement.
19. Defendant has failed to repay the principal amount of the loan.
20. Defendant has failed to pay accrued interest.
21. Defendant has indicated limited financial capacity to repay the loan.
22. Plaintiff has been unable to recover the loaned funds.
23. As a result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff has suffered financial damages, including but not limited to unpaid principal and accrued interest.

III. Claims for Relief

1. The Defendant breached the contract that was agreed between the two parties, which triggered the default clause in the contract. Allowing the plaintiff to collect 25 plots of their choosing from the defendant
2. By breaching the contract, the defendant has acted outrageously, by acting in a way that they knew would seriously harm another entity. By failing to repay the loan that was taken in good faith, he violated this agreement.

IV. Prayer for relief

1. 25 Plot belonging to the defendant or the equivalent value in redmont dollars
2. $150,000 in punitive damages
3. 30% of the total awarded damages in legal fees

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

By making this submission, I agree that 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 19th day of May 2026

P-001

Spoiler

P-002

Spoiler

P-003

Spoiler

P-004

Spoiler

P-005

Spoiler

P-006

Spoiler

P-007

Spoiler

Ticket Transcript

Thanks for Inquiring with Two Guys Realty @muhdog! Before an agent can help you, please provide us some information regarding your inquiry. (eg, Plot address, Buyer/Seller, etc.) Support will be with you shortly. To close this press the close button TicketTool.xyz - Ticketing without clutter ....

docs.google.com

P-008

Spoiler

P-009

Spoiler

Attached: Contract of sale;

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

If eviction actions are permitted to proceed, the Defendant’s assets will be permanently liquidated, leaving the Plaintiff unable to fulfil the prayer for relief of 25 plots from the defendant.

The Defendant is also involved in other cases, and allowing claims for relief to be paid out would put the plaintiff in a position where they will not be able to collect their equal amount of what is owed to them by the defendant.

In Light of these factors, we request that:

1. All Evictions against the defendant are paused until the end of this case
2. Any legal payout from cases against the defendant will be paused until the end of this case, to ensure an equal payout to all parties who suffered harm.

 

[dodrio3]

Proof of Representation:

 

[Franciscus]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF MANDAMUS

The Court understands that defendants deported for a long time are no longer barred altogether from public defense, and thus chooses to appoint a public defender in line with our reasoning given in ZxRiptide, Co-Plaintiff Pepecuu, and Co-Plaintiff Jakkuwu v. MasterCaelen and Co-Defendant MJL [2026] FCR 21, Post No. 37.

As such, the Public Defender Program (cc: @Dartanboy) shall, within 72 hours, identify a public defender who will be represent Defendant MasterCaelen. If none are available, then the Court shall be so informed as quickly as practicable.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

 

[Franciscus]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - RES JUDICATA, PREJUDICE RULE, and COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL

In ZxRiptide, Co-Plaintiff Pepecuu, and Co-Plaintiff Jakkuwu v. MasterCaelen and Co-Defendant MJL [2026] FCR 21, Jakkuwu sought leave of the Court to brief the Court on joining the case, was granted that leave, briefed the Court on why they wanted to intervene, and was ordered joined to the case. Jakkuwu then complained against the same defendant as is in the instant case, with a substantially similar complaint. In that case, discovery was completed and opening statements given before Jakkuwu was deported for a long time, after which Jakkuwu's claims were dismissed with prejudice.

A Court may dismiss a case under the doctrine of Res Judicata; that is: when "a case on the same issue has already been decided on" (Rule 5.8), such a case is barred. The Supreme Court has further articulated Res Judicata as follows:

When a case is given a final and valid judgment by a competent court of law, any claims that were (or could have been) raised by the same facts, situation, and parties in that previous case are barred from further litigation.

(Galactic Empire of Redmont v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 78, 5 (appeal)).

Separately, under the Court Rules and Procedures, a case "can only be retried if the case was dismissed without prejudice" (Rule 5.16). This is known as the Prejudice Rule.

Finally, a Court may dismiss when "a case with a similar or, more exceptionally, same fact set has already been previously litigated" (Rule 5.9). This is known as the doctrine of collateral estoppel.

The Supreme Court has previously dismissed a case sua sponte on dual grounds of Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel (see: Krix v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] SCR 9). The Federal Court in the instant case is contemplating sua sponte dismissal on the three grounds provided above. We seek to ensure that the record is adequately developed prior to our decision and to provide a meaningful opportunity to be heard. In line with Regulations of the Federal Court §10, the Court orders the Plaintiff to show cause within 48 hours to answer the following questions:

1. Is this case barred under the doctrine of Res Judicata? Why or why not?
2. Is this case barred by the Prejudice Rule? Why or why not?
3. Is this case barred under the doctrine of collateral estoppel? Why or why not?

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

 

[Dartanboy]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF MANDAMUS

The Court understands that defendants deported for a long time are no longer barred altogether from public defense, and thus chooses to appoint a public defender in line with our reasoning given in ZxRiptide, Co-Plaintiff Pepecuu, and Co-Plaintiff Jakkuwu v. MasterCaelen and Co-Defendant MJL [2026] FCR 21, Post No. 37.

As such, the Public Defender Program (cc: @Dartanboy) shall, within 72 hours, identify a public defender who will be represent Defendant MasterCaelen. If none are available, then the Court shall be so informed as quickly as practicable.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

@TheSnowGuardian has been assigned.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

May it not please the court, PD from PD program is present.

 

[Franciscus]

May it not please the court, PD from PD program is present.

48 hours to present an answer to complaint.