Lawsuit: In Session Commonwealth of Redmont v. Inknet [2025] FCR 123

Novakerbal

Novakerbal

Citizen
Justice Department
Supporter
Willow Resident
Statesman
NovaKerbal
NovaKerbal
State Prosecutor
Joined
Aug 11, 2025
Messages
41

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION


The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Inknet
Defendant

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

On October 20th, 2025, while conducting routine investigative work, the Commonwealth became aware of the potential sale of doctor restricted health treatment items. Upon further investigation, two chestshops owned by the defendant, Inknet, were found located on the plot Nbd020, selling wrist splints and leg splints respectively, both doctor restricted health treatment items. This amounts to Unauthorized Medical Sales, as the defendant was clearly responsible for the sale of health treatment items, in violation of the Criminal Code Act.

I. PARTIES
1. Inknet (Defendant)
2. Commonwealth of Redmont (Prosecution)
3. Rookieblue14 (Commonwealth Investigator)

II. FACTS
1. On October 20th, 2025, 2 chestshops owned by the Defendant, one selling wrist splints, and one selling leg splints, were discovered on the plot Nbd020 (P-001)
2. Doctor-restricted health treatment items are any item whose crafting recipe is only available to players who possess the doctor job, as strongly implied by the prior definition in the Criminal Code Act, Part VI, §5(a) which states "possesses a health treatment—specifically, one that can only be crafted by Doctors but not Pharmacists—outside of designated areas".
3. Wrist splints and leg splints are doctor-restricted health treatment items.
4. The Commonwealth lawfully seized 58 wrist splints from the aforementioned chestshop (P-002).
5. The Commonwealth obtained under warrant the sales records for each chestshop, and determined that a total of 150 leg splits were sold illicitly, and that a total of 5 wrist splints were sold illicitly (P-003),(P-004),(P-005),(P-006),(P-007),(P-008).
6. The Defendant, Inknet, currently retains the government job of doctor (P-009).
7. Official DOH Policy, Rules and Behavioral Guidelines, forbids the sale of doctor-only cures outside a hospital (P-010).
8. The Criminal Code Act, Part VI, §6(a), defines Unauthorized Medical Sale as "distributes, sells, or traffics any health treatment item restricted to Doctors or Pharmacists, or sells in a pharmacy not approved".
9. The Defendant's sale of health treatment items restricted to Doctors is a violation of this definition, irrespective of their status as a doctor, as implied by Official DOH Policy (P-010).

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. One Count of Unauthorized Medical Sale respecting the illicit sale of leg splints. Given that the sale of doctor-restricted health treatment items is illegal under the Criminal Code Act Part VI, §6.

2. One Count of Unauthorized Medical Sale respecting the illicit sale of wrist sprints. Given that the sale of doctor-restricted health treatment items is illegal under the Criminal Code Act Part VI, §6.

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. A 400 Penalty Unit fine, and 120 minutes of imprisonment, with respect to the two counts of Unauthorized Medical Sale. With the volume of sales demonstrating an aggravating factor, justifying the higher penalty as prescribed by law.

Evidence:

e1.png
e2.png
e3.png
e4.png
e5.png
e6.png
e7.png
e8.png
e9.png
e10.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 11th day of November, 2025.

 

Writ of Summons

@Inknet is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Commonwealth of Redmont v. Inknet

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.

 
Seeing as the Defendant has not made themselves present within 72 hours, we will assign a public defender.

Please stand by.
 
I am present as the assigned Public Defender.
 
Your Honor,

The Defendant has contacted the MZLD and has today indicated that he would like to substitute counsel in this case.

I respectfully request that 24-hour leave of the Court to read the case before presenting a plea.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2117.jpeg
    IMG_2117.jpeg
    152.4 KB · Views: 29
Franciscus said:
Your Honor,

The Defendant has contacted the MZLD and has today indicated that he would like to substitute counsel in this case.

I respectfully request that 24-hour leave of the Court to read the case before presenting a plea.
Click to expand...

Granted, PD @Superwoops is dismissed.
 

Plea


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
PLEA

Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Inknet
Defendant

I. ENTRY OF PLEA
1. Not Guilty
2. Not Guilty

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 21st day of November 2025

 
Thanks,

Discovery Open 11/26/25 @ 12pm EST
 
Your Honor,

Discovery ended at noon today (Post No. 9), and it is major holiday in my country tomorrow. I understand that opening statements are to be done within 48 hours of discovery closing, which would put us at them being due at noon on Friday, November 28 (Eastern Time).

I am respectfully requesting that the deadline to submit opening statements be moved to 11:59 P.M. on Saturday, November 29. I think that the trial would still be speedy with this extension; noting the lack of witnesses submitted by the prosecution and defense, and the consequent lack of need for witness questioning, I do not think that this extension will unduly extend the trial when considering the totality of the situation.
 
Franciscus said:
Your Honor,

Discovery ended at noon today (Post No. 9), and it is major holiday in my country tomorrow. I understand that opening statements are to be done within 48 hours of discovery closing, which would put us at them being due at noon on Friday, November 28 (Eastern Time).

I am respectfully requesting that the deadline to submit opening statements be moved to 11:59 P.M. on Saturday, November 29. I think that the trial would still be speedy with this extension; noting the lack of witnesses submitted by the prosecution and defense, and the consequent lack of need for witness questioning, I do not think that this extension will unduly extend the trial when considering the totality of the situation.
Click to expand...

Opening Statements due 11/29/25 @5pm EST
 
Muggy21 said:
Opening Statements due 11/29/25 @5pm EST
Click to expand...
Your Honor,

I will be traveling for a majority of the day tomorrow(the 29th), and haven’t been able to be as active these past days due to the major holiday. I am therefore humbly requesting an extension of the opening statements deadline by 24 hours.
 
Opening Statements due 11/30/25 @ 5pm.



Might as well ask, do parties wish to have an in-game trial on this matter? There are no witnesses.
 

Opening Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

The question before the court is quite clear, the Defendant, Inknet, is accused of 2 counts of Unauthorized Medical Sale. The Commonwealth is confident that the evidence before the court proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Inknet is guilty of Unauthorized Medical Sale. The evidence clearly depicts that Inknet sold the items in question, and therefore the Commonwealth aims to justify why the sale of said items was illegal under the Criminal Code Act.

I - Defining Doctor Restricted Health Treatment Items

While the Criminal Code Act does not directly define a "Health Treatment Item Restricted to Doctors", the legislative intent behind this crime is quite clear from prior crimes in the Criminal Code Act.

Part VI, §5(a) of the Criminal Code Act elaborates on which health treatment items are illegal to possess outside of a designated area by stating that "specifically, one that can only be crafted by Doctors but not Pharmacists". In this we can see the clear legislative intent behind the phrase "Health Treatment Item Restricted to Doctors", which is that the law clearly establishes items craftable by doctors only, in other words Restricted to Doctors. In the following section, Part VI, §6, the Criminal Code Act again restricts the usage of these same health treatment items, indicating that the definition from Part VI, §5(a) applies to the Doctor Restricted Health Treatment Items mentioned in Part VI, §6.

Using this definition we can clearly see that Leg Splints and Wrist Splints are Doctor Restricted Health Treatment Items, as the recipes are only available to those who have the doctor job thus making them "one that can only be crafted by Doctors". Therefore Part VI, §6 clearly applies to the sale of such items as described in this case.

II - Any Sale of Doctor Restricted Health Treatment Items is Illegal

Part VI, §6 of the Criminal Code Act is abundantly clear when it defines Unauthorized Medical Sale, in that it states "distributes, sells, or traffics any health treatment item restricted to Doctors or Pharmacists". Notably this law does not make any exceptions for Doctors themselves to sell these items, it solely defines any sale, regardless of the merchant, as being illegal under this law. Thus although the Defendant, Inknet, is a doctor employed by the DOH, this does not offer them any leeway under the law. As established prior, health treatment item restricted to Doctors refers to the ability to craft said item, not the ability to sell said item. Therefore any sale of a health treatment item restricted to Doctors is guilty of Unauthorized Medical Sale, irrespective of the job retained by the Defendant.

Indeed, official DOH policy supports this interpretation, as seen in Official DOH Rules and Behavioral Guidelines (P-010), stating that doctors should "7. Never sell doctor-only cures outside a hospital.". This clearly indicates that the DOH does not exempt Doctors from the sale of health treatment items restricted to doctors, and in fact they explicitly discourage it in accordance with the law which defines it as illegal.


III - Inknet Sold Doctor Restricted Health Treatment Items

There is no doubt that Inknet sold Wrist Splints and Leg Splints. P-001 clearly shows a chestshop, owned by the Defendant, where these items could be freely purchased. Furthermore, P-003, P-004, P-005, P-006, P-007, and P-008 all demonstrate a regular record of sales through this chestshop. The evidence is open and shut, Inknet sold 150 leg splints and 5 wrist splints, there is no doubt in this fact.

IV - Summary

In Summary, the Defendant is clearly guilty. Leg Splints and Wrist Splints are covered under the definition of Unauthorized Medical Sale, and the Defendant has been clearly proven to have sold these items. Furthermore, the law does not create any exemption for doctors, it is applied regardless of the Defendants employment. The Defendant is clearly guilty and thus should be charged with two counts of Unauthorized Medical Sale.

 

Opening Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

In a Criminal Court, the burden of proof is "Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" (Judicial Standards Act, Section 13(1)(c)). In this case, the Commonwealth alleges that the Defendant has committed multiple counts of Unauthorized Medical Sale as defined in Criminal Code Act Part VI, §6. Simply put: as outlined below, the defense does not believe that the Commonwealth has met this burden here.

1. Factual and Evidentiary Background​

In this case, the Prosecution has charged the defense with two distinct charges of Unauthorized Medical Sale: the first charge alleges that Unauthorized Medical Sale occurred when the Defendant allegedly sold leg splints (Complaint, Charge No. 1); the second alleges that Unauthorized Medical Sale occurred when the Defendant allegedly sold wrist splints (Complaint, Charge No. 2).

In support of this, the Prosecution has submitted ten screenshots as evidence. Nine of them lack timestamps (Exhibit P-001; P-003 through P-010), and one has a timestamp only implicitly (Exhibit P-002). A closer look at these exhibits are as follows:
  • Exhibit P-001 appears to show someone having purchased a wrist splint from Inknet for $49. The screenshot is undated.
  • Exhibit P-002 contains a screenshot of a player hovering over 57 wrist splints at the location "rev-impound"; based on the implicit timestamp, it was taken on or after Halloween. The Commonwealth alleges that the screenshot shows 58 wrist splints and that the source of these splints was from a chestshop owned by Inknet (Complaint, Charge Factual Allegation No. 4), but has not provided separate evidence nor secured witness testimony in support of either such claim.
  • Exhibits P-003 through P-008 appear to show logs of various people purchasing and selling leg/wrist splints, but do not name the Defendant; the Commonwealth alleges that this was obtained under warrant and applies to the Defendant (Complaint, Charge Factual Allegation No. 5), does has provide separate evidence nor secured witness testimony in support of either such claim.
  • Exhibit P-009 is an undated screenshot appearing to show Inknet's professions through the /about menu.
  • Exhibit P-010 is a screenshot of a portion of DOH Rules and Behavior Guidelines that shows various rules.

2. Discussion​

Before we dive into our analysis on proof, and apply the facts- and evidence-in-case to the law, we must first discuss: what is the law here?

The Prosecution alleges two separate charges, both of which represent allegations of Unauthorised Medical Sales under CCA Part VI, Section 6. The relevant clause defines the crime of "Unauthorised Medical Sales" as occurring when an individual "distributes, sells, or traffics any health treatment item restricted to Doctors or Pharmacists, or sells in a pharmacy not approved."

As no allegations nor evidence have been produced regarding pharmacy approval (or lack thereof), the defense will disregard "sells in a pharmacy not approved" for purposes of this trial.

Noting that, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable that, for each count, the Defendant:
  1. Distributed a "health treatment item restricted to Doctors or Pharmacists"; or
  2. Sold a "health treatment item restricted to Doctors or Pharmacists"; or
  3. Trafficked in a "health treatment item restricted to Doctors or Pharmacists".

2.1 Charge 1: The Prosecution has failed to prove the first charge (regarding the alleged sale of leg splints) beyond a reasonable doubt?​

The prosecution alleges that leg splints are doctor-restricted items (Complaint, 3rd factual allegation) and also that Inknet engaged in the sale of leg splints (Complaint, 5th factual allegation). As such, the Prosecution appears to allege that Inknet would be liable under the second numbered rule identified above. But is there enough evidence?

Our answer is simple: there is not. The prosecution has failed to prove that Exhibit P-003 through P-008 actually relate to the Defendant, and has failed to prove that leg splints were restricted to doctors at the time of the alleged sales.

2.1.1 Argument: The prosecution has failed to prove that Exhibit P-003 through P-007 relate to the Defendant?​

The prosecution alleges that Exhibit P-003 through P-007 were "obtained under warrant" (Complaint, Charge Factual Allegation No. 5) and relate to the Defendant. But the Prosecution provides no warrant, and the screenshots name a large number of people, but do not name the Defendant. The Prosecution has not called any witnesses (such as investigators) nor provided any evidence (such as affadavits of warrant returns) that could have demonstrated this to relate to the Defendant.

Had the prosecution actually obtained these screenshots via warrant, and had there actually been warrant returns that relate to the Defendant, the prosecution could have called witnesses and provided evidence to demonstrate that Exhibit P-003 through P-007 show transactions that relate to the Defendant. They have not.

We are left with naked assertions by a prosecution, but naked assertions do not provide for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

2.1.2 Argument 2: Has the prosecution failed to prove that leg splints were "restricted to Doctors or Pharmacists" at the time of the alleged sales in Exhibit P-003 through P-007?​

The 3rd factual allegation states that "Wrist splints and leg splints are doctor-restricted health treatment items" (Complaint). Again, no evidence has been provided for this; the prosecuting attorney has not produced any lists of items restricted to doctors, nor called any witnesses to this effect. No law defines what these items are, and this Court cannot conclude that such items are indeed doctor-restricted absent proof in evidence.

2.2 Charge 2: The prosecution failed to prove the second charge (regarding the alleged sale of leg splints) beyond a reasonable doubt?​

2.2.1 Argument: The Prosecution has failed to prove that the material in Exhibit P-002 relates to the Defendant​

The prosecution alleges that Exhibit P-002 demonstrates that "The Commonwealth lawfully seized 58 wrist splints from the aforementioned chestshop" (Complaint, Charge Factual Allegation No. 4). The screenshot is taken at a different location (the "rev-impound") than the chestshops in Exhibit P-001. No testimony or evidence was proffered in support that this screenshot actually relates to Defendant; witnesses could have been called, but weren't.

2.2.2 Argument: The prosecution has failed to prove that Exhibit P-008 relates to the Defendant​

This is largely duplicative to the argument at 2.2.1, so I have put the full argument in spoiler; the argument is very similar.
The prosecution alleges that Exhibit P-008 were "obtained under warrant" (Complaint, Charge Factual Allegation No. 5) and relate to the Defendant. But the Prosecution provides no warrant, and the screenshots name a large number of people, but do not name the Defendant. The Prosecution has not called any witnesses (such as investigators) nor provided any evidence (such as affadavits of warrant returns) that could have demonstrated that the screenshots plausibly relate to the Defendant.

Had the prosecution actually obtained these screenshots via warrant, and had there actually been warrant returns that relate to the Defendant, the prosecution could have called witnesses and provided evidence to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that Exhibit P-008 shows transactions that relate to the Defendant. They have not.

We are left with naked assertions by a prosecution, but naked assertions do not provide for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

2.2.3 Argument: Has the prosecution failed to prove that wrist splints were a "health treatment item restricted to Doctors or Pharmacists" at the time of the alleged sale in exhibit P-001?​

Again, this largely duplicaties a prior argument (2.1.2).
The 3rd factual allegation states that "Wrist splints and leg splints are doctor-restricted health treatment items" (Complaint). Again, no evidence has been provided for this; the prosecuting attorney has not produced any lists of items restricted to doctors, nor called any witnesses to this effect. No law defines what these items are, and this Court cannot conclude that such items are indeed doctor-restricted absent proof in evidence.

3. Conclusion​

Insufficient evidence to convict Inknet of either count has been submitted before this Court. As such, the Court must find Inknet not guilty on all charges, as there is clearly reasonable doubt as to his guilt based upon the evidence-in-case.

 
Muggy21 said:
@Novakerbal @Franciscus

Considering there are no witnesses, how do parties wish to proceed?
Click to expand...
Your Honor,

As there are no witnesses, the Defense would like to proceed to closing statements. We are happy to read our closing statement in-game at your courthouse, provided that we can submit a written copy on the forums and that such written copy would be considered official for all purposes—makes it easier to link to/cite things.
 
Franciscus said:
Your Honor,

As there are no witnesses, the Defense would like to proceed to closing statements. We are happy to read our closing statement in-game at your courthouse, provided that we can submit a written copy on the forums and that such written copy would be considered official for all purposes—makes it easier to link to/cite things.
Click to expand...
The Commonwealth does not object to proceeding into closing statements.

On the Subject of reading our closing statements in-game, the Prosecutor for this case prefers not to use Voice Chat. If we were to read out closing statements in an in-game chat channel, this would feel redundant, as it would be mostly copy pasting line after line from the draft.
 
@Franciscus
@Novakerbal

Thank you counselors. We'll proceed on forums.

Deadline for Closing Statements:
Prosecution: 12/3/25 @ 5pm
Defense : 12/6/25 @ 5pm.

Extensions welcome within the window.




In review of filings, the Court requests parties answer the following question as part of their closing argument:

1) Thru the DOH, Doctors are able to respond to calls for medical attention across the Country. They create health treatment items and give it to those in need. If a player does not have Medicare, they'd otherwise be required to pay for this treatment. With Medicare, the Government undoubtedly steps in and pays on the player's behalf via the /bulkbill command.


Posed Question: What is an authorized medical treatment in consideration of the Criminal Code Act? How is this Court to apply the law in relation to existing and accepted practice?

Do not restrict your analysis to my question, I'd just like an answer to assist with my deliberations.
 
Deadlines modified.
Prosecution: 12/3/25 @ 5pm
Defense : 12/6/25 @ 5pm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top