Lawsuit: In Session Commonwealth of Redmont v. Plura72 [2025] DCR 39

aubunny

aubunny

Citizen
Representative
Homeland Security Department
Justice Department
Commerce Department
Education Department
Supporter
Statesman 5th Anniversary
malka
malka
Representative
Joined
Apr 7, 2025
Messages
36

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION


The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Plura72
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Prosecution alleges criminal actions committed by the Defendant as follows:

In the recent court case FCR 39 2025, the Defendant spoke out of turn and without being summonsed to add conjecture and chaos into the existing court case. This attempt to influence the case's result by speaking while not involved whatsoever may change the end result of the case, both by their presence bringing a sense of immaturity and chaos into the court, and through their statements which insult the standing Plaintiff personally within the case.

I. PARTIES
1. Commonwealth of Redmont. (Defendant in listed case. Victim of Pluras disruption)
2. Plura72 (Defendant.)
3. Dr_Explosive (Presiding judge over the case, victim of Pluras disruption)
4. xEndeavour (Plaintiff in the presiding case listed above, victim of Pluras disruption)

II. FACTS
1. Plura72 was not summonsed to the case, nor were they representing the Attorney General on behalf of the commonwealth
2. Plura72 spoke out of turn in response to the Plaintiffs' Opening Statement.
3. Plura72 insulted the plaintiff directly, accusing them of perjury indirectly by claiming that they were "lying"
4. The charge of Obstruction of Justice was recommended by the presiding judge.
5. Plura72 has an ongoing injunction barring them from appearing in court sans the representation of a lawyer.

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. Obstruction of Justice

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. 150 dollar fine + 20 minutes jail
2. Extension of the Injunction barring them from posting court cases.

EVIDENCE:

P-01, capturing the accusations of lying against the Plaintiff's opening statement in FCR 39.
1748637182348.png

P-02, listing the honorable judge Dr_Eksplosive pointing out the disruption of court procedures by the defendant.
1748637254909.png
P-03, Plura's injunction preventing appearing in a court case without representation by a lawyer, dated April 18th.
1748637849092.png


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 30th day of May, 2025.

 
You gotta be kidding me
 
just fine those 150$ already
 

Writ of Summons


@Plura72 is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Commonwealth of Redmont v. Plura72 [2025] DCR 39. In compliance with the injunction against you, please ensure that you have a qualified lawyer represent you.

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.

 
Plura72 said:
just fine those 150$ already
Click to expand...

Court Order


CONTEMPT OF COURT

@Plura72, for speaking in court without representation, in violation of the injunction against you, you're hereby charged with contempt of court. Please refrain from interacting with the courts without representation.

 

Plea


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
PLEA

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Plura72
Defendant

I. ENTRY OF PLEA
1. The defendant pleads Not Guilty to one count of Obstruction of Justice

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 8 day of June 2025

 
We will now enter discovery which shall end 5 days from the time of this post.

Discovery may end early upon agreement of both parties.
 
As the statement was not struck, we motion for this to be added as P-04


1749517680986.png





With this submission, the prosecution agrees to end discovery early, pending the defendant's decision.
 
aubunny said:
As the statement was not struck, we motion for this to be added as P-04


View attachment 55959




With this submission, the prosecution agrees to end discovery early, pending the defendant's decision.
Click to expand...

Objection


OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

Your honor, the statements my client made in this case are irrelevant to the obstruction charge for statements made in FCR 39 2025

 
bloodyrebals said:

Objection


OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

Your honor, the statements my client made in this case are irrelevant to the obstruction charge for statements made in FCR 39 2025

Click to expand...

Response


Rule 4.1 (Scope and Purpose of Discovery)​

The scope and purpose of Discovery is to allow all material to enter the court prior to the beginning of arguments for the sake of fairness. It is to enable fairness by allowing the parties to view the information so that they may properly formulate their legal arguments. Presiding judges shall be guided by this principle.

 
bloodyrebals said:

Objection


OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

Your honor, the statements my client made in this case are irrelevant to the obstruction charge for statements made in FCR 39 2025

Click to expand...
Given the facts currently presented, the Court agrees the proposed evidence is irrelevant to the charge.
Objection sustained.

If the Prosecution believes this is an error, the Court encourages them to file a Motion to Reconsider and demonstrate the evidence's relevance to the case.
 

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Rule 5.5 Lack of claim, In s6(i) of the Miscellaneous Offences Act defines obstruction of justice as "Willfully interfering with the process of justice through influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, police officer, detective, or by providing false information.". The evidence the commonwealth has provided in this case fails to prove that my client's statements made in FCR 39 2025 either willfully interfered with the process of justice through influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, police officer, detective, or by providing false information.

 
bloodyrebals said:

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Rule 5.5 Lack of claim, In s6(i) of the Miscellaneous Offences Act defines obstruction of justice as "Willfully interfering with the process of justice through influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, police officer, detective, or by providing false information.". The evidence the commonwealth has provided in this case fails to prove that my client's statements made in FCR 39 2025 either willfully interfered with the process of justice through influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, police officer, detective, or by providing false information.

Click to expand...
Motion denied.
 
Discovery has ended. The Prosecution now has 72 hours to file their Opening Statement.
 
JunkCereal said:
Motion denied.
Click to expand...

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your honor, Obstruction of justice requires willfully interfering with the process of justice through influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, police officer, detective, or by providing false information. The prosecution has argued that my client attempted to influence the case's result by speaking while not involved. The statements made by my client in FCR 39 2025 (P-01) do not fulfill the requirements to be charged with obstruction of justice, as the statements did not provide false information, or influence, threaten, harm. or impeding a witness, potential witness, police officer, or detective.

 
bloodyrebals said:

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your honor, Obstruction of justice requires willfully interfering with the process of justice through influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, police officer, detective, or by providing false information. The prosecution has argued that my client attempted to influence the case's result by speaking while not involved. The statements made by my client in FCR 39 2025 (P-01) do not fulfill the requirements to be charged with obstruction of justice, as the statements did not provide false information, or influence, threaten, harm. or impeding a witness, potential witness, police officer, or detective.

Click to expand...
The defense requests that the judge waits until after opening statements to make a decision on this motion.
 
bloodyrebals said:

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your honor, Obstruction of justice requires willfully interfering with the process of justice through influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, police officer, detective, or by providing false information. The prosecution has argued that my client attempted to influence the case's result by speaking while not involved. The statements made by my client in FCR 39 2025 (P-01) do not fulfill the requirements to be charged with obstruction of justice, as the statements did not provide false information, or influence, threaten, harm. or impeding a witness, potential witness, police officer, or detective.

Click to expand...
aubunny said:
The defense requests that the judge waits until after opening statements to make a decision on this motion.
Click to expand...
Agreed. A decision for the Motion to Reconsider/Dismiss will be postponed until after Opening Statements have been made.
 

Opening Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

The plaintiff asks a straightforward question of the judge: As a witness, being asked to familiarize yourself with the case before testifying, could your thought process be biased by the input provided in the evidence listed? The answer is immutable, no matter how experienced the witness may be: They would. The defense will now outline the following ways in which Plura72 would have potentially biased any further witnesses, and explain why.


"stop lying end"
As a reminder, the party that Plura72 was talking to in P-01 is under oath, and as such, the reference to lying must be considered as Perjury. The courts have an explicit duty to care for their constitutional obligations, which include addressing public official misconduct. Public Official conduct includes acts of perjury. As such, if not struck down by the judges, there would have been an obligation to investigate xEndeavours claims under intense scrutiny; it is only logical that this investigation would cause a witness's view of Endeavours' testimony to be irreparably skewed.

"most of these are 1+ year old projects since completion so you are wrong"
This is a blatant lie by the defendant, as evidenced by the case FCR-39 2025, which shows that multiple projects were submitted within the past six months since the case was filed. It is evident to the judge: lying to the courts, even while not under oath, is a complete obstruction of justice.

"YOU HAVE MADE NO PROGRESS RECENTLY AND NO PROGRESS SO STOP LYING THE PEOPLE HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF YOU!!"
This one is the most blatant obstruction given by the defendant. "The people have had enough of you" is a clear call to action against any potential witness [the people] to be biased against xEndeavour. A call to action is an explicit request to all parties to achieve a specific goal. In this case, Plura72 issues a rallying cry to stand against xEndeavour, referring to this overall party as "the people," which is a clear stance to indicate attempted unity, which would include unity with potential witnesses.

With the defendants' statements clearly broken down, it is more clear than ever that Plura72 had not only spoken out of turn, resulting in the potential bias of any potential witness, but also expressed clear Intent to do so by attempting to perform a call to action with his final sentence. As such, Plura72 is clearly guilty of the crime of Obstruction of Justice.

 
The Defendant now has 72 hours to file their Opening Statement.
 

Opening Statement


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

My client stands before this court accused of obstruction of justice due to statements made in FCR 39 2025. The question is, could my client’s statements have influenced a witness, and was the statement "most of these are 1+ year old projects since completion so you are wrong" false information. To determine if my client's statements made in FCR 39 2025 could have influenced a witness, we must examine what was said by my client and how a witness could have interpreted it.

“stop lying end”
An experienced witness could interpret this statement and see that this statement was made by a person who had no connection at all to the case prior to posting these statements. And as such, would view this statement skeptically at the least, if not disregard this statement in its entirety. With this in mind, any influence this statement may have had is destroyed,

“most of these are 1+ year old projects since completion so you are wrong”
The prosecution says this statement made by my client is a blatant lie, but the evidence that the prosecution has provided (P-01) (P-02) doesn't include proof that this statement made by my client is false, and as such, this element of the crime is unsupported

“YOU HAVE MADE NO PROGRESS RECENTLY AND NO PROGRESS SO STOP LYING THE PEOPLE HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF YOU!!”
An experienced could interpret this statement and see that this statement was made by a person who had no connection at all to the case prior to posting these statements. And as such, would view this statement skeptically at the least, if not disregard this statement in its entirety. With this in mind, any influence this statement may have had is destroyed,

After breaking down these statements and explaining how an experienced witness could interpret my client’s statements, it is clear that Plura72 is not guilty of the crime of obstruction of justice.

 
bloodyrebals said:

Opening Statement


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

My client stands before this court accused of obstruction of justice due to statements made in FCR 39 2025. The question is, could my client’s statements have influenced a witness, and was the statement "most of these are 1+ year old projects since completion so you are wrong" false information. To determine if my client's statements made in FCR 39 2025 could have influenced a witness, we must examine what was said by my client and how a witness could have interpreted it.

“stop lying end”
An experienced witness could interpret this statement and see that this statement was made by a person who had no connection at all to the case prior to posting these statements. And as such, would view this statement skeptically at the least, if not disregard this statement in its entirety. With this in mind, any influence this statement may have had is destroyed,

“most of these are 1+ year old projects since completion so you are wrong”
The prosecution says this statement made by my client is a blatant lie, but the evidence that the prosecution has provided (P-01) (P-02) doesn't include proof that this statement made by my client is false, and as such, this element of the crime is unsupported

“YOU HAVE MADE NO PROGRESS RECENTLY AND NO PROGRESS SO STOP LYING THE PEOPLE HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF YOU!!”
An experienced could interpret this statement and see that this statement was made by a person who had no connection at all to the case prior to posting these statements. And as such, would view this statement skeptically at the least, if not disregard this statement in its entirety. With this in mind, any influence this statement may have had is destroyed,

After breaking down these statements and explaining how an experienced witness could interpret my client’s statements, it is clear that Plura72 is not guilty of the crime of obstruction of justice.

Click to expand...

Objection


RELEVANCE

The law obstruction of justice lists a witness or a potential witness; nowhere does it list "experienced witnesses" as the defense is referring to repetitively. This broadens the scope of interpretation of the law MASSIVELY by claiming that you can only be guilty of Obstruction of justice if the potential witness is "experienced" and still swayed.

As an example of how this may damage the case by expanding the law to refer to "experienced witnesses," we will use a witness cited in FCR-39, the case that led to this prosecution. Witness Vroomba has never appeared in court once before the referenced case, and as such, was not familiar with the procedures and customs of how to act as a witness in court, even going as far as to tempt the judge with a contempt order when the case filing was first made, by making out of turn comments. To use the example of "An experienced witness could interpret this statement" or "An experienced [witness] could interpret this statement" about a court case where there is a first-time appointee to the legal scene is a gross misrepresentation, and to expand the scope of interpretation to the law to be "if an experienced witness could interpret it this way" as opposed to "any potential witness" would be irreparably damaging to delivering a fair trial.

As such, the plaintiff requests that any sentences contingent to an "experienced witness" be struck from the record as an attempt to expand the scope of this law erroneously, which would be the following quotes.

"An experienced could interpret this statement and see that this statement was made by a person who had no connection at all to the case prior to posting these statements. And as such, would view this statement skeptically at the least, if not disregard this statement in its entirety. With this in mind, any influence this statement may have had is destroyed,"

"An experienced witness could interpret this statement and see that this statement was made by a person who had no connection at all to the case prior to posting these statements. And as such, would view this statement skeptically at the least, if not disregard this statement in its entirety. With this in mind, any influence this statement may have had is destroyed,"

As these are both one long run-on sentence, the entire body listed above should be struck in order not to leave half-finished thoughts in the opening statement, and to allow for it to be interpreted correctly without having to assume judgment that has been removed from the record by any judicial body.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top