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

dodrio3

dodrio3

Citizen
Supporter
Aventura Resident
Construction & Transport Department
Health Department
4th Anniversary 6th Anniversary Grave Digger Change Maker
Dodrio3
Dodrio3
Inspector
Joined
May 15, 2021
Messages
592

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
1779176752764.png
1779176752795.png
1779176752825.png

1779176752854.png

1779176752883.png

P-002
1779176752967.png

P-003
1779176752996.png

P-004
1779176753022.png

P-005
1779176753046.png

P-006
1779176753075.png

P-007
docs.google.com

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 docs.google.com
Clerk note: Struck by Court

P-008
1779176753104.png

P-009
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.

 

Attachments

Last edited by a moderator:

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

 

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.
Click to expand...
(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

 
Franciscus said:

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

Click to expand...
@TheSnowGuardian has been assigned.
 
dodrio3 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Court Order


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER - MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION (Post No. 1)

Granted in part.

The Court notes the existence of two injunctions against the Defendant's plots at the moment (see: ZxRiptide, Co-Plaintiff Pepecuu, and Co-Plaintiff Jakkuwu v. MasterCaelen and Co-Defendant MJL [2026] FCR 21). While the Court is somewhat skeptical as to the necessity of another injunction, it doesn't seem to create any new harm to anyone, so the Court will grant this.

As to the second request: the Court does not find any payouts at this time as coming from the Defendant, so we don't see why we would pause payouts at this time. The only payment ordered is one of legal from Jakkuwu to a public defender and separately to escrow. Motivation to "ensure an equal payout to all parties who suffered harm" does not justify an EI now, particularly when no liability of the Defendant has yet been finally established.

Our modified injunction is as follows:

Court Order


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT GRANTING EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

The Federal Court grants an emergency instruction as follows:

  • Any properties whose title is held by the Defendant may not be transferred, seized, evicted, or otherwise have their titleholder changed for the duration of this case. Any such actions are void ab initio except upon either explicit leave of the Federal Court in this case or a final order/verdict in this case.
In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155



In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

 
Franciscus said:

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:

(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

Click to expand...

Brief


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Your honour,

While prior case ZxRiptide, Co-Plaintiff Pepecuu, and Co-Plaintiff Jakkuwu v. MasterCaelen and Co-Defendant MJL [2026] FCR 21 involves a claim brought by Jakkuwu (Former CEO of Two Guys Realty), it featured an entirely different party, Jakkuwu's personal, rather than this case, which is brought by the legal entity Two Guys Realty. Dismissing an independent corporate entity's right to relief based on the personal procedure of a former executive would be an extreme miscarriage of justice.

1. Res Judicata

According to the precedent established in Galactic Empire of Redmont v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 7, Res Judicata request both of the following not to allow a case to go ahead.

1. The same issue between the same parties is re-litigated.
2. There has been no material change in facts or law.

As Two Guys Realty is a distinct, separate party from Jakkuwu, the former CEO, section one of this ruling cannot be applied

There has been a change in facts in the case. In the case of [2026] FCR 21, it is alleged that the loan was given to the defendant by Jakkuwu. But P-008, a screenshot from the Two Guys Realty accounting, shows that the loan was handed out by Two Guys and not Jakkuwu

2. Prejudice Rule

The Prejudice Rule dictates that a case cannot be retried if it was previously dismissed with prejudice. However, this rule applies only to the same plaintiff bringing the same claims; the prejudice under FCR 21 belongs to Jakkuwu. Two Guys Realty is an independent entity that has never tried this case in court and has not had it dismissed.

To bar Two Guys from seeking a $700,000 remedy because the former executive, who had no right to seek relief that wasn't theirs, would cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff and its shareholders.

3. Collateral estoppel

Collateral Estoppel prevents the relitigation of an issue of fact or law that has already been litigated and decided on. In FCR 21, Jakkuwus' claims were dismissed procedurally due to a “long-term deportation”. The court did not evaluate the merits of the loan contract, nor did it rule on whether MasterCaelen breached this contract.

Because the underlying facts regarding the breach of contract and the debt default were never evaluated or ruled upon by a judge, there are no existing “judicial findings of fact”.

 
dodrio3 said:

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
View attachment 82734View attachment 82737View attachment 82738
View attachment 82743
View attachment 82742

P-002
View attachment 82744

P-003
View attachment 82739

P-004
View attachment 82735

P-005
View attachment 82736

P-006
View attachment 82740

P-007
docs.google.com

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 docs.google.com

P-008
View attachment 82741

P-009
Attached: Contract of sale;

Click to expand...

Answer to Complaint


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

Two Guys Realty
Plaintiff

v.

MasterCaelen
Defendant

I. Answer to Complaint

1. Deny, Plaintiff did not demonstrate Loan (if it exists and is valid) was between Plaintiff and the Defendant.
2. Deny, Plaintiff did not demonstrate they were a party to this said agreement.
3. Neither Affirm nor Deny.
4-8. Neither Affirm nor Deny.
9. Deny, Plaintiff does not demonstrate they were a party to this said agreement, additionally evidence is improper on grounds that it does not demonstrate where MasterCaelen is duly identified as being a party of any possible affirmative statements that may have suggested, implied, or said that the Defendant did indeed receive the money that is alleged by the Plaintiff to be have sent.
10. Deny.
11-13. Neither Affirm nor Deny.
14-15. Deny.
16-23. Neither Affirm nor Deny.

II. Defences

1. Plaintiff was never subject to the said loan agreement.


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 22nd day of May 2025.

 

Objection


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

Your Honour, the Defense objects to P-007 and asks that it be struck from the Court Record for the following reasons:

According to Court Rules and Procedures', Rule 4.6,

Images must be uploaded DIRECTLY TO THE FORUMS to be submitted as evidence.
Click to expand...

Clearly, P-007 is a Google Docs link that is subject to the Plaintiff's manipulation. As such, we ask that the Court strike P-007 for being improper in its nature.

 
TheSnowGuardian said:

Objection


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

Your Honour, the Defense objects to P-007 and asks that it be struck from the Court Record for the following reasons:

According to Court Rules and Procedures', Rule 4.6,

Clearly, P-007 is a Google Docs link that is subject to the Plaintiff's manipulation. As such, we ask that the Court strike P-007 for being improper in its nature.

Click to expand...
Sustained.

While a Google doc is not an image file, the Court has previously considered whether or not to admit Google Docs as evidence and has found that such evidence is improper for violating “the principle that [a] court filing must not be easily changed without the Court being able to know; evidence must be submitted in a way that reflects this principle” (ZxRiptide, Co-Plaintiff Pepecuu, and Co-Plaintiff Jakkuwu v. MasterCaelen and Co-Defendant MJL [2026] FCR 21, Post No. 103). Unlike in the cited case, we have yet to enter discovery here, so the Court will not re-upload the evidence in immutable form; such responsibility would fall on the Plaintiff.

P-007 is struck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top