Lawsuit: In Session Commonwealth of Redmont v. ImzaKRD [2025] SCR 20

[Superwoops]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION

Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

ImzaKRD
Defendant

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

PROSECUTING AUTHORITY REPORT
vvirtue_ sent ImzaKRD, an Aventura Councillor, $10,000 in exchange for a street to be named after them. ImzaKRD, as an elected official holding public office, was influenced, profiting personally from this event.

I. PARTIES

1. Commonwealth of Redmont (Prosecution)​
2. ImzaKRD/RealImza (Defendant)​

II. FACTS

1. On December 2nd, 2025, vvirtue_ sent the following in-game message in general: "imza, what will it take to get a vvirtue lane in aventura" (P-001)​
2. Moments later, ImzaKRD said "10K payable to the Council of Aventura" followed by "jkjk" (P-001)​
3. The Defendant then said "talk to Katto and Anime ig" to which vvirtue_ answered "damn, I was about to be like 'deal' too" (P-001)​
4. Upon realising vvirtue_'s intent to make the payment, the Defendant replied with "pay me 10K and I'll make sure you get a lane" (P-001).​
5. vvirtue_ then made a payment of $10,000 to the Defendant. (P-001)​
6. ImzaKRD asked vvirtue_ "where do you want the lane at?" (P-001)​
7. vvirtue_ stated "anywhere in aventura >: ) I'm not picky" to which the Defendant replied with "done!". (P-001)​
8. The street sign name was changed by the Defendant to reflect vvirtue_'s name.​
9. At the time, the Defendant was an elected official holding public office as a Councillor of Aventura.​
10. The District Court has established that vvirtue_'s payment was an act of Bribery beyond reasonable doubt in the following case: Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. vvirtue_ [2025] DCR 102​
11. The Defendant has since admitted to committing the crime of Bribery by responding to the following case: Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. vvirtue_ [2025] DCR 102, affirming the facts by saying "this is true". (P-002)​

II. CHARGES

The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charge against the Defendant:​

1. One count of Bribery under CCA §II(5), committed when a person "offers, gives, solicits, or receives an item or service of value to influence an individual holding public office or serving in a legal capacity." In this case, the Defendant solicited, then accepted, a sum of $10,000 in exchange for him using his power within the Aventura Council to name a street after vvirtue_. The Councillor was influenced, as shown by his response, indicating an agreement to deliver the benefit had been formed.​
2. One count of Corruption under CCA §II(1), committed when a person "uses a government position to gain an unfair advantage for oneself or another, inconsistent with official duty." The Defendant's acceptance of payment deliverable to his own personal account makes his actions attributable to Corruption, as the advantage in question corresponds to the Defendant's own personal interest: his monetary gain. He leveraged his authority, apparent or factual, of changing the sign name within this quid pro quo, also providing an advantage (preferential naming rights) to a third party; in this case, vvirtue_. These actions are inconsistent with a Councillor's official duty and therefore constitute the crime of Corruption following the Supreme Court's corruption test.​

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:​

1. 100 Penalty Units, 10 minutes of imprisonment, and 2 months disqualification from office for one count of Bribery.​
2. 100 Penalty Units for one count of Corruption. This recommendation is deliberately set below the statutory maximum for this offence (40% of maximum allowed fines of 250 Penalty Units, and no disqualification from office as opposed to a maximum of 2 months), reflecting prosecutorial restraint and a tempered disposition, sufficient to revindicate the integrity of public office and to deter similar conduct in the future.​

V. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: P-001 (STRUCK AS IMPROPER)

https://imgur.com/a/y2oSIC7

Spoiler: P-002

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 15th day of December 2025.
​

​

 

[Muggy21]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order - Sua Sponte Dismissal of Fact 10 & 11


The Constitution, specifically R. Const 32 § (7) states that "[r]ights cannot be withheld on the basis of criminality, rights are inalienable." This is a criminal prosecution, this Court can't be prejudiced against the Defendant simply because another party to the action pled guilty in another Court or before another Judicial Officer. This principle, res inter alios acta, is the notion that the acts or admissions of one person may not be used against another; guilt by association is fundamentally unconstitutional and thus may not be explicitly used as a fact.

The Commonwealth may choose to use the witness in that case, if it chooses, but may not attempt to purport guilty prior to this Court's adjudication.

So ordered,
Judge Mug

 

[Muggy21]

Writ of Summons

@Imza , is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Commonwealth of Redmont v. ImzaKRD [2025] FCR 133

In the interest of more efficient Courtroom proceedings, the Court will permit responses to motions without prior Court permission. The deadline for said motions shall be 48 hours.

Furthermore, in obedience with Rule 1.4, parties are advised that engaging in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of this Court or its proceedings may be held in Contempt of Court.

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.

 

[Superwoops]

Motion

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

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order - Sua Sponte Dismissal of Fact 10 & 11


The Constitution, specifically R. Const 32 § (7) states that "[r]ights cannot be withheld on the basis of criminality, rights are inalienable." This is a criminal prosecution, this Court can't be prejudiced against the Defendant simply because another party to the action pled guilty in another Court or before another Judicial Officer. This principle, res inter alios acta, is the notion that the acts or admissions of one person may not be used against another; guilt by association is fundamentally unconstitutional and thus may not be explicitly used as a fact.

The Commonwealth may choose to use the witness in that case, if it chooses, but may not attempt to purport guilty prior to this Court's adjudication.

So ordered,
Judge Mug

Your honour,

The Prosecution was not trying to imply that, because vvirtue_ was found guilty, the Defendant in this case must be too. The fact of the matter is, the District Court's verdict established that the act, referring to the transfer of funds from vvirtue_'s side only, constitutes a bribe being offered to the Defendant. The Defendant then received those funds. It is a factual base, and its establishment is important to discuss this case, serving as strong evidence not for the Court to prematurely assume that the Defendant is guilty, but rather to determine the facts surrounding the transfer of funds.
Furthermore, Fact 11 refers to valuable evidence. Upon a statement that said "Imza... took bribes???" (referencing the DCR case) the Defendant responded with "This is true". This is an admission of guilt under the Act of Congress - I Admit Act. Guilt by association does not apply here, as vvirtue_'s guilty verdict is not in question but rather the Defendant's own admission of guilt.​

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

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

Your honour,

The Prosecution was not trying to imply that, because vvirtue_ was found guilty, the Defendant in this case must be too. The fact of the matter is, the District Court's verdict established that the act, referring to the transfer of funds from vvirtue_'s side only, constitutes a bribe being offered to the Defendant. The Defendant then received those funds. It is a factual base, and its establishment is important to discuss this case, serving as strong evidence not for the Court to prematurely assume that the Defendant is guilty, but rather to determine the facts surrounding the transfer of funds.
Furthermore, Fact 11 refers to valuable evidence. Upon a statement that said "Imza... took bribes???" (referencing the DCR case) the Defendant responded with "This is true". This is an admission of guilt under the Act of Congress - I Admit Act. Guilt by association does not apply here, as vvirtue_'s guilty verdict is not in question but rather the Defendant's own admission of guilt.​

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order - Motion to Reconsider P#4 - Sua Sponte Fact Dismissal

DENIED

The District Court's finding establishing the fact that the "act" of bribery occurred is evidence of the allegation, not a fact. Fact #10 was dismissed because if the "act" of bribery is a settled fact, then the defendant in this case would be prejudiced without having the opportunity to be heard in defense of this alleged fact. Considering I must assume innocence rather than guilt in this proceeding, the Court can't consider the payment made to Defendant to be a bribe as settled fact.

Fact #11 was dismissed because this is evidence, not a fact. An admission isn't a fact. The act of admission is, but the content therein is not. Thus the Court strikes this as well. No part of my original order is meant to limit your argument, I just wont treat it as settled fact.

So ordered,
Judge Mug

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Your honour,

I am here to represent Imza in this matter.

Motion

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

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and refiled in the SCR.

Constitution - Part. II Art. 20.1.a - The Supreme Court of Redmont has original jurisdiction over matters of "Removing and/or banning individuals from public office."

As the Commonwealth is requesting a 2 month ban from office for the charge of Bribery, this falls in line with the SCR's jurisdiction and should be heard there.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[Muggy21]

Your honour,

I am here to represent Imza in this matter.

Motion

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

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and refiled in the SCR.

Constitution - Part. II Art. 20.1.a - The Supreme Court of Redmont has original jurisdiction over matters of "Removing and/or banning individuals from public office."

As the Commonwealth is requesting a 2 month ban from office for the charge of Bribery, this falls in line with the SCR's jurisdiction and should be heard there.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

View attachment 69383

DENIED. The Federal Court removes this case to the Supreme Court.

 

[Superwoops]

Your honour,

The Prosecution respectfully requests this Court to revise the previous ruling striking facts 10 and 11.
In Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. zLost [2023] SCR 14, the Court removed a case to the Supreme Court for the same reason as this case. The SCR also mentioned that "All previous proceedings remain in effect seeing as no consequential decisions have been made so far." In the aforementioned case, the Judge had not ruled on any motions or objections before the case was moved to the SCR. This is why the Justice stated no consequential decisions had been made. The Court's phrasing implies that any consequential decisions made may be subject to revision, and current proceedings may be impacted as a result.
This case differs from Zlost as the Judge did order a dismissal, and ruled on a motion to reconsider, therefore consequential decisions have been made.

We furthermore argue that all facts mentioned in our filing can be opposed and discussed by opposing counsel, however should not be immediately dismissed by the Court since both are established facts supported by evidence.​

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Plea

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

ImzaKRD
Defendant

I. ENTRY OF PLEA
1. To the charge of Bribery, we plead Not Guilty.
2. To the charge of Corruption, we plead 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 18th day of December 2025

 

[Smallfries]

This case has been remanded to the SCR and styled Commonwealth of Redmont v. ImzaKRD [2025] SCR 20. In a 3-0 vote, the SCR has appointed Associate Justice Smallfries4 as presiding officer in this case during trial proceedings, empowered to rule in the interest of efficiency. Parties may object to rulings made by the presiding officer through a motion to reconsider, which will then be ruled on by the Supreme Court as a bench.

---

Apologies for the wait. As it currently stands, I recognize the plea of not guilty on all counts. We're gonna go ahead and move to discovery now, for five days from the moment of this post being filed.

As to the outstanding filing made by the Commonwealth, I'm going to be honest and say I'm a bit unclear as to what is being asked. Given that, as far as I am aware, the issue the Commonwealth has is not one that is relevant to discovery (that is, not a question that will be harmed if I do not give an answer during discovery), I'm going to ask the Commonwealth to please follow-up with a clarification, or a proper motion or objection to help clarify what they are seeking at this moment.

 

[Superwoops]

Thank you, your honour.
We would like the Court to disregard the revision request filed here:

Your honour,

The Prosecution respectfully requests this Court to revise the previous ruling striking facts 10 and 11.
In Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. zLost [2023] SCR 14, the Court removed a case to the Supreme Court for the same reason as this case. The SCR also mentioned that "All previous proceedings remain in effect seeing as no consequential decisions have been made so far." In the aforementioned case, the Judge had not ruled on any motions or objections before the case was moved to the SCR. This is why the Justice stated no consequential decisions had been made. The Court's phrasing implies that any consequential decisions made may be subject to revision, and current proceedings may be impacted as a result.
This case differs from Zlost as the Judge did order a dismissal, and ruled on a motion to reconsider, therefore consequential decisions have been made.

We furthermore argue that all facts mentioned in our filing can be opposed and discussed by opposing counsel, however should not be immediately dismissed by the Court since both are established facts supported by evidence.​

 

[Smallfries]

Thank you, your honour.
We would like the Court to disregard the revision request filed here:

Acknowledged.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Objection

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

In regards to P-001

The courts have previously not accepted 'editable text logs' on their own without collaborating evidence, of which has not been provided in this case so far.

In the case of royalsnakee v. iikermitii [2024 DCR 7] - 'An editable text log on its own is insufficient evidence. If you have collaborating evidence to prove the statements, you can submit it in a motion to reconsider.'

This was also upheld in a verdict in which the evidence provided was not considered in MrCheesguy v. Forevershadow1 [2025 DCR 15] - 'P-001 - P-006 are chat logs that are highly editable. For this reason, evidence like this have been struck in the past (royalsnakee v. iikermitii [2024] DCR 7)'


We ask that this evidence be struck or that the Commonwealth is compelled to produce collaborating evidence of the logs they wish to introduce.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

We compel the DoJ to produce evidence of the following:

1. The location of the alleged modified sign
2. The alleged modified sign
3. List of people who had access to modify the sign
4. The alleged transfer of funds

 

[Smallfries]

I'll give the Commonwealth some time to respond to these. The Supreme Court issues a modified Merry Christmas.

 

[Superwoops]

Response

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Objection

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

In regards to P-001

The courts have previously not accepted 'editable text logs' on their own without collaborating evidence, of which has not been provided in this case so far.

In the case of royalsnakee v. iikermitii [2024 DCR 7] - 'An editable text log on its own is insufficient evidence. If you have collaborating evidence to prove the statements, you can submit it in a motion to reconsider.'

This was also upheld in a verdict in which the evidence provided was not considered in MrCheesguy v. Forevershadow1 [2025 DCR 15] - 'P-001 - P-006 are chat logs that are highly editable. For this reason, evidence like this have been struck in the past (royalsnakee v. iikermitii [2024] DCR 7)'


We ask that this evidence be struck or that the Commonwealth is compelled to produce collaborating evidence of the logs they wish to introduce.

The Commonwealth will be filing supplementary evidence shortly. We would like to point out, however, that the same piece of evidence was previously found permissible in the District Court of Redmont.

 

[Superwoops]

SUBMISSION OF EVIDENCE:

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: P-004

Spoiler: P-005

 

[Superwoops]

WITNESS LIST:

1. vvirtue_
2. AnimeInc

 

[Superwoops]

Motion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY

Your honour, the Commonwealth respectfully requests a 24-hour extension of discovery to gather necessary and valuable pieces of evidence.

 

[Smallfries]

Motion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY

Your honour, the Commonwealth respectfully requests a 24-hour extension of discovery to gather necessary and valuable pieces of evidence.

Granted. Discovery is extended for a further twenty-four hours from the previous deadline.

 

[Smallfries]

Objection

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

In regards to P-001

The courts have previously not accepted 'editable text logs' on their own without collaborating evidence, of which has not been provided in this case so far.

In the case of royalsnakee v. iikermitii [2024 DCR 7] - 'An editable text log on its own is insufficient evidence. If you have collaborating evidence to prove the statements, you can submit it in a motion to reconsider.'

This was also upheld in a verdict in which the evidence provided was not considered in MrCheesguy v. Forevershadow1 [2025 DCR 15] - 'P-001 - P-006 are chat logs that are highly editable. For this reason, evidence like this have been struck in the past (royalsnakee v. iikermitii [2024] DCR 7)'


We ask that this evidence be struck or that the Commonwealth is compelled to produce collaborating evidence of the logs they wish to introduce.

Motion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY

Your honour, the Commonwealth respectfully requests a 24-hour extension of discovery to gather necessary and valuable pieces of evidence.

I am assuming the evidence the Commonwealth has asked for an extension to gather is the evidence corroborating the chatlogs in P-001. I will wait until those are produced—or discovery elapses—to make a ruling on this objection.

 

[Superwoops]

SUBMISSION OF EVIDENCE:

Spoiler: P-006

2025-12-02-1 (1).log

drive.google.com

These are unedited logs submitted directly by vvirtue_, a witness for this case who will testify following opening statements.

 

[Smallfries]

Objection

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

In regards to P-001

The courts have previously not accepted 'editable text logs' on their own without collaborating evidence, of which has not been provided in this case so far.

In the case of royalsnakee v. iikermitii [2024 DCR 7] - 'An editable text log on its own is insufficient evidence. If you have collaborating evidence to prove the statements, you can submit it in a motion to reconsider.'

This was also upheld in a verdict in which the evidence provided was not considered in MrCheesguy v. Forevershadow1 [2025 DCR 15] - 'P-001 - P-006 are chat logs that are highly editable. For this reason, evidence like this have been struck in the past (royalsnakee v. iikermitii [2024] DCR 7)'


We ask that this evidence be struck or that the Commonwealth is compelled to produce collaborating evidence of the logs they wish to introduce.

This is granted sustained. Raw text files are not admissible as evidence unless corroborated by a secondary source.

---

We will commence the trial. The Commonwealth (@Superwoops) shall have seventy-two hours to present their opening statement.

 

[Superwoops]

Motion

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

This is granted sustained. Raw text files are not admissible as evidence unless corroborated by a secondary source.

---

We will commence the trial. The Commonwealth (@Superwoops) shall have seventy-two hours to present their opening statement.

Your honour,

The Prosecution respectfully moves for a reconsideration on the ruling that struck exhibit P-001 from the record.

On admissibility

Editability is not exclusive to chat logs. Unfortunately, many pieces of evidence can be forged and manipulated. This does not render them inadmissible because the opposing party must shed some doubt upon the veracity of the evidence.
In fact, in Lawsuit: Dismissed - jsrkiwi v Trentrick_Lamar [2025] DCR 90, the District Court ordered a party to preserve these same types of logs, which were later entered into evidence. The Prosecution would not ask this Court to abide by the lower Court's ruling, but rather ponder if the Defense's unsubstantiated claims warrant the exclusion of this evidence which has also proven valuable and admissible in Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. vvirtue_ [2025] DCR 102, having been used to establish a factual basis surrounding the same circumstances as this case and to convict another party for offering a bribe to the Defendant.
In this case, we have a witness who has submitted evidence voluntarily. They are available for cross-examination from the Defense. There really aren't any more optimal conditions than these. If the witness testimony were to shed any doubt on the evidence, an objection might be warranted then, but not now. In short, the evidence in P-001 and P-006 are not unsupported; they have a witness who can swear as to the validity of the evidence.​

Regarding supporting evidence

If the aforementioned evidence is not sufficient, the Prosecution would like to file the following supporting evidence (P-007). Noting that Discovery has elapsed, we do ask for this to be accepted, as the original objection and response were still filed in Discovery. This piece of evidence is crucial, as the precedent cited by the Defense (Lawsuit: Adjourned - royalsnakee v. IIKermitII [2024] DCR 7) would have allowed a video showing these facts as supporting evidence. In then-Magistrate Matthew100x's words: "I unfortunately did not see the new evidence because of the jump to the new page. This would have been legitimate cross-evidence verifying". Since the Prosecution was not aware this objection would have been sustained outside of Discovery, we humbly ask for this evidence to be accepted.​

Regarding falsification of evidence

It has been brought to the Prosecution's attention that attempts to tamper with or falsify evidence falls under Staff purview as a Staff-punishable offense. In the event someone has any suspicion that evidence has been tampered with, they would report that in a Staff ticket, not resort to the Courts. As such, the Department of Justice verified with Server Staff, who were able to authenticate that all messages pertaining to the transaction shown in logs were in fact real. The Prosecution is happy to show evidence of this interaction if needed by the Court.

For all of the above stated reasons, we respectfully ask the Court to reconsider the order striking P-001 from the record.​

Spoiler: P-007

 

[Superwoops]

The Prosecution would also like to respectfully ask for a 30-hour extension, as the outcome of the above motion's ruling greatly affects the content of our Opening Statement.
Additionally, it will be New Year's Eve tomorrow.

 

[Smallfries]

The Prosecution would also like to respectfully ask for a 30-hour extension, as the outcome of the above motion's ruling greatly affects the content of our Opening Statement.
Additionally, it will be New Year's Eve tomorrow.

I will grant this. The above motion will be ruled on by the Supreme Court as a bench.

 

[Superwoops]

Your honour, due to the fact that the ruling on the proposed Motion to Reconsider will materially affect the arguments and framing proposed in the Commonwealth's opening statement, we ask for an extension of the deadline to file opening statements. Specifically, the Commonwealth requests that the deadline be extended until the Court has issued its ruling, plus an additional twenty-four hours thereafter to adjust to said ruling.

 

[Smallfries]

Your honour, due to the fact that the ruling on the proposed Motion to Reconsider will materially affect the arguments and framing proposed in the Commonwealth's opening statement, we ask for an extension of the deadline to file opening statements. Specifically, the Commonwealth requests that the deadline be extended until the Court has issued its ruling, plus an additional twenty-four hours thereafter to adjust to said ruling.

This is granted.

 

[Smallfries]

Motion

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


Your honour,

The Prosecution respectfully moves for a reconsideration on the ruling that struck exhibit P-001 from the record.

On admissibility

Editability is not exclusive to chat logs. Unfortunately, many pieces of evidence can be forged and manipulated. This does not render them inadmissible because the opposing party must shed some doubt upon the veracity of the evidence.
In fact, in Lawsuit: Dismissed - jsrkiwi v Trentrick_Lamar [2025] DCR 90, the District Court ordered a party to preserve these same types of logs, which were later entered into evidence. The Prosecution would not ask this Court to abide by the lower Court's ruling, but rather ponder if the Defense's unsubstantiated claims warrant the exclusion of this evidence which has also proven valuable and admissible in Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. vvirtue_ [2025] DCR 102, having been used to establish a factual basis surrounding the same circumstances as this case and to convict another party for offering a bribe to the Defendant.
In this case, we have a witness who has submitted evidence voluntarily. They are available for cross-examination from the Defense. There really aren't any more optimal conditions than these. If the witness testimony were to shed any doubt on the evidence, an objection might be warranted then, but not now. In short, the evidence in P-001 and P-006 are not unsupported; they have a witness who can swear as to the validity of the evidence.​

Regarding supporting evidence

If the aforementioned evidence is not sufficient, the Prosecution would like to file the following supporting evidence (P-007). Noting that Discovery has elapsed, we do ask for this to be accepted, as the original objection and response were still filed in Discovery. This piece of evidence is crucial, as the precedent cited by the Defense (Lawsuit: Adjourned - royalsnakee v. IIKermitII [2024] DCR 7) would have allowed a video showing these facts as supporting evidence. In then-Magistrate Matthew100x's words: "I unfortunately did not see the new evidence because of the jump to the new page. This would have been legitimate cross-evidence verifying". Since the Prosecution was not aware this objection would have been sustained outside of Discovery, we humbly ask for this evidence to be accepted.​

Regarding falsification of evidence

It has been brought to the Prosecution's attention that attempts to tamper with or falsify evidence falls under Staff purview as a Staff-punishable offense. In the event someone has any suspicion that evidence has been tampered with, they would report that in a Staff ticket, not resort to the Courts. As such, the Department of Justice verified with Server Staff, who were able to authenticate that all messages pertaining to the transaction shown in logs were in fact real. The Prosecution is happy to show evidence of this interaction if needed by the Court.

For all of the above stated reasons, we respectfully ask the Court to reconsider the order striking P-001 from the record.​

Spoiler: P-007

Apologies for the delay.

Verdict

In a 3-0 vote, the Supreme Court rejects the Motion to Reconsider.

Text logs as a form of evidence are naturally suspect and must be corroborated by independent evidence. This evidence can include an in-game cross-referenced screenshot, asking staff to either confirm the logs or post them themselves, or through witness testimony as to the content of the logs occurring in-game. Additional logs, or another witness submitting additional logs, is not corroborating evidence as to text logs. royalsnakee v. IIKermitII [2024] DCR 7 ("An editable text log on its own is insufficient evidence."); see also MrCheesGuy v. ForeverShadow1 [2025] DCR 15.

It is true that any piece of evidence can be doctored. However, the ease and simplicity through which logs can be edited, and the difficulty on first look of verifying them, means care must be taken to ensure their veracity. We do not necessarily believe the Commonwealth is lying or attempting to perjure themselves, but we uphold the mantra here of "trust, but verify."

The Commonwealth offered as corroborating evidence only logs from another individual. After discovery ended, they attempted to submit video evidence of what they purport to be footage from that witness viewing unedited text logs. Neither of these suffice as independent corroborations. The Commonwealth further states that they have communicated with staff, who authenticated that all relevant messages were authenticated.

None of these are good enough. To begin with, only the secondary logs and the video were actually submitted as evidence. Of those, only the logs themselves were properly submitted before discovery closed. Nothing else should be entertained. Were we to entertain P-007, that too is not properly corroborating. Finally, the discussion with staff as to the authenticity of the logs would have sufficed as corroborating evidence. However, these discussions were not submitted in evidence, even after discovery elapsed.

Logs can be useful as evidence, but they must be corroborated independently. Staff discussion, posting, or witness testimony as to their contents can do this. Due to the heightened nature of proceedings here as a criminal trial, we believe it is of utmost importance that the Commonwealth properly allege its accusations and properly support them in every way.

In a civil case, perhaps more leniency could be granted as to corroboration. Here, however, in order to protect the rights and liberties of those accused of crimes, standards of procedure and evidence must be strictly adhered to. The Commonwealth bears the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that a crime was committed, and therefore must properly prove to the fullest all allegations presented. Were we to allow the Commonwealth to try over and over again to submit unsubstantiated and improper evidence, the rights and liberties of the citizenry could be eroded. Thus, we reject this motion.

The Commonwealth (@Superwoops) shall have twenty-four hours to post their opening statement.

 

[Kaiserin_]

Motion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY

Your Honour,

Acknowledging the atypical nature of this motion, the Commonwealth requests that Discovery be reopened. In support thereof, we submit that:
- A key part of the Commonwealth's evidence was struck as Discovery ended, without opportunity to submit new evidence that would prove the facts that the now-struck logs would have proven;
- This has created significant complications in meeting the evidentiary burden for basic facts of this case, that it would seem improper to levy entirely upon witness testimony;
- Your Honour's verdict is the first authoritative precedent in this case on the admissibility of raw chat logs;
- The relevant parts of Discovery occurred during the holidays, creating significant constraints for both the filing prosecutor and DOJ leadership.

The Commonwealth has evidence that would meet the evidentiary burden required to establish the facts of this case, and would like to submit it, should Your Honour see it fit. In witness thereof, we ask that this Motion be sustained, and that Discovery be reopened for a period of at least 48 hours, in order that the Court might be able to rule on this case with all the knowledge required for a fully informed verdict.

Failing this, we request another 24-hour extension on Opening Statements.

 

[Smallfries]

Motion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY

Your Honour,

Acknowledging the atypical nature of this motion, the Commonwealth requests that Discovery be reopened. In support thereof, we submit that:
- A key part of the Commonwealth's evidence was struck as Discovery ended, without opportunity to submit new evidence that would prove the facts that the now-struck logs would have proven;
- This has created significant complications in meeting the evidentiary burden for basic facts of this case, that it would seem improper to levy entirely upon witness testimony;
- Your Honour's verdict is the first authoritative precedent in this case on the admissibility of raw chat logs;
- The relevant parts of Discovery occurred during the holidays, creating significant constraints for both the filing prosecutor and DOJ leadership.

The Commonwealth has evidence that would meet the evidentiary burden required to establish the facts of this case, and would like to submit it, should Your Honour see it fit. In witness thereof, we ask that this Motion be sustained, and that Discovery be reopened for a period of at least 48 hours, in order that the Court might be able to rule on this case with all the knowledge required for a fully informed verdict.

Failing this, we request another 24-hour extension on Opening Statements.

I won't entertain this I'm afraid. The Commonwealth needs to be fully prepared to bring forth evidence and charges. If there was supporting evidence that could have supplanted what has been struck, it should have been admitted in addition to either the allotted time in discovery, or the attempt to reconsider the ruling that struck it.

Further, discovery could have been extended. This was done once prior, and if the holidays created issues that said extension could not resolve, a further extension should have been requested. It is not the duty of the court to bend rules and make exceptions so that the Commonwealth can more easily prosecute alleged crimes. As ruled above, restrictions are in place specifically to frustrate attempts by the Commonwealth to prosecute crimes in order to protect citizens. I apologize for the frustration and complication here, but this is not permissible. The Commonwealth must be prepared to meet its burden.

I will grant the twenty-four hour extension.

 

[Superwoops]

Opening Statement

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your honour,

The Commonwealth of Redmont as a whole has been damaged by the actions of RealImza, an individual who has not acted in accordance with their official duties and who has neglected the trust that their voters bestowed them with.

On bribery

Under the CCA, Bribery is defined as an act in which a person "offers, gives, solicits, or receives an item or service of value to influence an individual holding public office or serving in a legal capacity." Bribery is a quid pro quo in which something of value is given with the intent of swaying a public official's conduct. In this case, it has been proven by the District Court that in this same instance, a payment was sent, and that the outgoing payment was a bribe as per Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. vvirtue_ [2025] DCR 102. Witness testimony by vvirtue_ will further confirm that the payment was sent beyond reasonable doubt. It was also determined that RealImza was a Councillor at the time. It is now up to this Court to determine whether the receiving end is guilty of bribery.

P-003 demonstrates that the Defendant changed the sign shown in P-004 to reflect vvirtue_'s name (the person offering the payment). It therefore cannot be disputed that the Defendant did not have the capacity to put in effect the action of changing a street sign name. The only item yet to be proven is the mens rea of the Defendant, which will be addressed in witness testimony shortly by the other individual involved in the exchange of value: vvirtue_. Still, the crime of Bribery does not require the action being fulfilled, only the intent.

However, if the criminal action was indeed performed, such as in this case, not only is it an aggravating factor for sentencing, but it proves that intent did exist (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - Inknet v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 86). If this Court were to find that bribery occurred, then intent to commit bribery necessarily must have existed as well.

Finally, the Defendant has admitted to having committed the act of bribery (P-002), a piece of supporting evidence under the I Admit Act.


On corruption

Corruption is defined as an act where an individual "(a) uses a government position to gain an unfair advantage for oneself or another, inconsistent with official duty." The Defendant in this case, as a Councillor, gained a pecuniary advantage of $10,000 by changing the street sign. Had the Defendant not been a Councillor, he couldn't have changed the name. There is no public program in Aventura relating to the renaming of streets in exchange for money, and certainly not for payment to a Councillor's personal account. These actions were not known by any member of Municipal leadership and were therefore not authorised, therefore this rises to the level of being inconsistent with the Defendant's official duties. Witness testimony by the Mayor of Aventura will be able to confirm this.

The aforementioned undue benefit is twofold: first, for RealImza, as Councillors are not allowed to request personal payment for street naming rights.
Secondly, vvirtue_ gained the advantage because they otherwise would not have had a street named after them. The benefit for them in this case may seem trivial, but it underscores a true injustice. This is a public marker, a symbol of prestige and a city-backed stamp of recognition obtained through an unauthorised transaction and bypassing the transparent processes that the Town so tirelessly works to preserve. In this case, these two facts will be addressed by the Municipal authority.

For the above reasons, the Commonwealth asks for the Defendant to be held guilty on both counts.

​

 

[Smallfries]

The defendant (@Julia_ @asexualdinosaur) shall have seventy-two hours to provide their opening statement.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Motion

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

While this motion falls outside of the expected time to file per 5.2 When to Submit Motion, it’s filed in the hopes for some leniency in consideration of the issue presented.

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

1. 5.13 Failure to provide discovery
We made a motion to compel 4 points of evidence from the Commonwealth [Motion to Compel], of which only some were provided.

Notably two pieces of information were not given.
‘3. List of people who had access to modify the sign’
‘4. The alleged transfer of funds’


The Commonwealth has not provided evidence of anyone else who had access to modify the sign.


The Commonwealth has also not provided evidence of the transfer of funds they are alleging -- While they seem to be attempting to ‘verify’ this through witness testimony this is blatantly just hearsay.

The Commonwealth is capable of getting transaction logs from staff or other government entities to verify transactions that happened.
The witness they called would also have had this in their transaction logs if it existed, which the Commonwealth could have requested from them.

Opening Statement

This is a fairly simple case.

Imza did not engage in bribery or corruption.

The Commonwealth has not shown any evidence of a transaction having taken place in which they alleged that the defendant received ‘$10,000’

P-002 - The defendant did not admit guilt towards this crime. While it is true that they said “This is true”, it was in response to the statement “Imza… took bribes???” - and added onto that by saying “Toad once bribed me too”.
Imza follows this up later in the same piece of evidence to suggest they were joking as well, which is an action that protects their statement.

Further, even if this were to be taken as a serious statement - It’s unclear if the bribes he’s ‘admitting’ to were even the ones in relation to the case brought before the courts. It’s entirely possible that the bribes Imza would be admitting to aren’t even relevant to the case at hand.

It’s also vital to note that P-002 cannot be used as evidence for the crime of either Bribery or Corruption occurring, it can only be used to prove “who” did the crime. (I Admit Act §3.2) - ‘An admission of guilt on its own cannot be used as sole evidence for a crime being committed, in order to be admissible it must be proven the crime actually happened - the point of an Admission of Guilt is to prove who did it.’

The burden of proof for the crime having been committed at all, is still on the Commonwealth and they have failed to do so with the evidence they’ve submitted.

P-003 - While this evidence does note that the name of the sign was modified, and who it had been modified by, this still does not prove that either Bribery or Corruption had occurred.


The Commonwealth now with no evidence to point to, reaches lazily for the DCR case that went over with a guilty plea in an attempt to prove a crime in a higher court -- Notably did not offer Imza to contest any of the facts of the case, and so to use it as a point of ‘truth’ is unfair in the matter of this case. What would stop the Commonwealth from prosecuting cases against inactive, deported, or agreeable citizens to paint the illusion of evidence against others? The Commonwealth is more than capable of retrieving evidence for the crimes they allege and instead opted to provide the minimum amount of possible evidence in hopes of achieving another ‘layup’ - This is simply a mockery of the courts and a mockery of evidentiary standards.


The Commonwealth of which certainly has the tools and time at their disposal. They were under no rush to file this case, the statute of limitations not near its end - Yet they made minimal effort to present evidence that would show ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that a crime had occurred.

The defense believes this court should find the defendant, Not Guilty.

 

[Superwoops]

Motion

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

While this motion falls outside of the expected time to file per 5.2 When to Submit Motion, it’s filed in the hopes for some leniency in consideration of the issue presented.

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

1. 5.13 Failure to provide discovery
We made a motion to compel 4 points of evidence from the Commonwealth [Motion to Compel], of which only some were provided.

Notably two pieces of information were not given.
‘3. List of people who had access to modify the sign’
‘4. The alleged transfer of funds’


The Commonwealth has not provided evidence of anyone else who had access to modify the sign.


The Commonwealth has also not provided evidence of the transfer of funds they are alleging -- While they seem to be attempting to ‘verify’ this through witness testimony this is blatantly just hearsay.

The Commonwealth is capable of getting transaction logs from staff or other government entities to verify transactions that happened.
The witness they called would also have had this in their transaction logs if it existed, which the Commonwealth could have requested from them.

Opening Statement

This is a fairly simple case.

Imza did not engage in bribery or corruption.

The Commonwealth has not shown any evidence of a transaction having taken place in which they alleged that the defendant received ‘$10,000’

P-002 - The defendant did not admit guilt towards this crime. While it is true that they said “This is true”, it was in response to the statement “Imza… took bribes???” - and added onto that by saying “Toad once bribed me too”.
Imza follows this up later in the same piece of evidence to suggest they were joking as well, which is an action that protects their statement.

Further, even if this were to be taken as a serious statement - It’s unclear if the bribes he’s ‘admitting’ to were even the ones in relation to the case brought before the courts. It’s entirely possible that the bribes Imza would be admitting to aren’t even relevant to the case at hand.

It’s also vital to note that P-002 cannot be used as evidence for the crime of either Bribery or Corruption occurring, it can only be used to prove “who” did the crime. (I Admit Act §3.2) - ‘An admission of guilt on its own cannot be used as sole evidence for a crime being committed, in order to be admissible it must be proven the crime actually happened - the point of an Admission of Guilt is to prove who did it.’

The burden of proof for the crime having been committed at all, is still on the Commonwealth and they have failed to do so with the evidence they’ve submitted.

P-003 - While this evidence does note that the name of the sign was modified, and who it had been modified by, this still does not prove that either Bribery or Corruption had occurred.


The Commonwealth now with no evidence to point to, reaches lazily for the DCR case that went over with a guilty plea in an attempt to prove a crime in a higher court -- Notably did not offer Imza to contest any of the facts of the case, and so to use it as a point of ‘truth’ is unfair in the matter of this case. What would stop the Commonwealth from prosecuting cases against inactive, deported, or agreeable citizens to paint the illusion of evidence against others? The Commonwealth is more than capable of retrieving evidence for the crimes they allege and instead opted to provide the minimum amount of possible evidence in hopes of achieving another ‘layup’ - This is simply a mockery of the courts and a mockery of evidentiary standards.


The Commonwealth of which certainly has the tools and time at their disposal. They were under no rush to file this case, the statute of limitations not near its end - Yet they made minimal effort to present evidence that would show ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that a crime had occurred.

The defense believes this court should find the defendant, Not Guilty.

Your honour, may the Commonwealth respond to the Motion to Dismiss?

 

[Smallfries]

Your honour, may the Commonwealth respond to the Motion to Dismiss?

You may.

 

[Smallfries]

Opening Statement​

This is a fairly simple case.

Imza did not engage in bribery or corruption.

The Commonwealth has not shown any evidence of a transaction having taken place in which they alleged that the defendant received ‘$10,000’

P-002 - The defendant did not admit guilt towards this crime. While it is true that they said “This is true”, it was in response to the statement “Imza… took bribes???” - and added onto that by saying “Toad once bribed me too”.
Imza follows this up later in the same piece of evidence to suggest they were joking as well, which is an action that protects their statement.

Further, even if this were to be taken as a serious statement - It’s unclear if the bribes he’s ‘admitting’ to were even the ones in relation to the case brought before the courts. It’s entirely possible that the bribes Imza would be admitting to aren’t even relevant to the case at hand.

It’s also vital to note that P-002 cannot be used as evidence for the crime of either Bribery or Corruption occurring, it can only be used to prove “who” did the crime. (I Admit Act §3.2) - ‘An admission of guilt on its own cannot be used as sole evidence for a crime being committed, in order to be admissible it must be proven the crime actually happened - the point of an Admission of Guilt is to prove who did it.’

The burden of proof for the crime having been committed at all, is still on the Commonwealth and they have failed to do so with the evidence they’ve submitted.

P-003 - While this evidence does note that the name of the sign was modified, and who it had been modified by, this still does not prove that either Bribery or Corruption had occurred.


The Commonwealth now with no evidence to point to, reaches lazily for the DCR case that went over with a guilty plea in an attempt to prove a crime in a higher court -- Notably did not offer Imza to contest any of the facts of the case, and so to use it as a point of ‘truth’ is unfair in the matter of this case. What would stop the Commonwealth from prosecuting cases against inactive, deported, or agreeable citizens to paint the illusion of evidence against others? The Commonwealth is more than capable of retrieving evidence for the crimes they allege and instead opted to provide the minimum amount of possible evidence in hopes of achieving another ‘layup’ - This is simply a mockery of the courts and a mockery of evidentiary standards.


The Commonwealth of which certainly has the tools and time at their disposal. They were under no rush to file this case, the statute of limitations not near its end - Yet they made minimal effort to present evidence that would show ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that a crime had occurred.

The defense believes this court should find the defendant, Not Guilty.

Thank you for your opening statement. We'll have a brief stay on proceedings while the motion to dismiss is outstanding.

 

[Superwoops]

Response

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

Your honour,

The Defense's Motion to Dismiss is in violation of rule 5.2 of the Court Rules and Procedures, which specifically state that "A Motion to Dismiss must be submitted at any time before the beginning of opening statements." This motion was filed after the Commonwealth's Opening Statement and as such, cannot be entertained.

Furthermore, even if it was heard, the Motion to Compel was never granted by the Presiding Officer. As such, the Commonwealth was under no obligation to grant the required information (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - EpicFought v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 19, Lawsuit: Adjourned - Vernicia v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 51, and Lawsuit: Adjourned - Reveille Legion v. BabySoga [2025] DCR 52, all cases where the motions to compel were granted prior to the evidence being required by the Court.)

 

[Smallfries]

Motion​

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

While this motion falls outside of the expected time to file per 5.2 When to Submit Motion, it’s filed in the hopes for some leniency in consideration of the issue presented.

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

1. 5.13 Failure to provide discovery
We made a motion to compel 4 points of evidence from the Commonwealth [Motion to Compel], of which only some were provided.

Notably two pieces of information were not given.
‘3. List of people who had access to modify the sign’
‘4. The alleged transfer of funds’


The Commonwealth has not provided evidence of anyone else who had access to modify the sign.


The Commonwealth has also not provided evidence of the transfer of funds they are alleging -- While they seem to be attempting to ‘verify’ this through witness testimony this is blatantly just hearsay.

The Commonwealth is capable of getting transaction logs from staff or other government entities to verify transactions that happened.
The witness they called would also have had this in their transaction logs if it existed, which the Commonwealth could have requested from them.

This is denied at this time. Of particular note, it is necessary to say that in the excitement of the logs debate, I failed to order the motion to compel, and so there was no order from the court for the Commonwealth to be bound to. Sorry folks, it's been a long few weeks, and I overlooked that that matter was outstanding. In the future, please try to remind the presiding officer of such an outstanding motion not long after discovery elapses.

With that being said, the Commonwealth (@Superwoops) is compelled to produce the two uncontested pieces of evidence elucidated in the Defendant's motion that are outstanding. I'll put a deadline of forty-eight hours to collect this evidence for the court.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

This is denied at this time. Of particular note, it is necessary to say that in the excitement of the logs debate, I failed to order the motion to compel, and so there was no order from the court for the Commonwealth to be bound to. Sorry folks, it's been a long few weeks, and I overlooked that that matter was outstanding. In the future, please try to remind the presiding officer of such an outstanding motion not long after discovery elapses.

With that being said, the Commonwealth (@Superwoops) is compelled to produce the two uncontested pieces of evidence elucidated in the Defendant's motion that are outstanding. I'll put a deadline of forty-eight hours to collect this evidence for the court.

Respectfully your honour,

If the Commonwealth was not compelled to produce it during discovery and our motion to compel was not accepted, then we would ask to have the motion withdrawn as we have moved past discovery and both sides have already provided their opening statements - And move forward.

 

[Smallfries]

Respectfully your honour,

If the Commonwealth was not compelled to produce it during discovery and our motion to compel was not accepted, then we would ask to have the motion withdrawn as we have moved past discovery and both sides have already provided their opening statements - And move forward.

If that is your wish then we can do it that way. The order is rescinded. Apologies again for missing it at the time.

---

@Anime Inspector and @vvirtue_ are required to appear before the Supreme Court in the case of Commonwealth of Redmont v. ImzaKRD as witnesses within 72 hours.

Once both witnesses are present, the Commonwealth (@Superwoops) may ask its questions. Both parties will be allowed to ask one slate of questions. Any requests for follow-ups must include the follow-up questions themselves, and allow time for objection. Once the Commonwealth's questions are answered (or if they yield to the Court without questioning), the Defendant may present their questions.

 

[vvirtue_]

I'm present but apologise in advance if my responses are delayed due to issues that have arisen in my personal life.

 

[Smallfries]

I'm present but apologise in advance if my responses are delayed due to issues that have arisen in my personal life.

That's fine, just make your best effort.

 

[Anime Inspector]

I'm present

 

[Smallfries]

I'm present

Thank you. The Commonwealth (@Superwoops) may present their questions to the witnesses within 24 hours.

 

[Kaiserin_]

Thank you. The Commonwealth (@Superwoops) may present their questions to the witnesses within 24 hours.

Your Honour,

Hereby notifying the Court that this case has been reassigned to myself. Requesting a 24-hour extension on witness questions to ensure I have time to familiarise myself fully with the case - in all likelihood I should be able to get questions in before the initial deadline, but I'd like to ensure that there are no issues.

 

[Smallfries]

Your Honour,

Hereby notifying the Court that this case has been reassigned to myself. Requesting a 24-hour extension on witness questions to ensure I have time to familiarise myself fully with the case - in all likelihood I should be able to get questions in before the initial deadline, but I'd like to ensure that there are no issues.

Granted.

 

[Kaiserin_]

@vvirtue_ Thank you for your presence here today.

1. Is the recounting in this case filing of the interaction that occurred between you and JuliaMC_ on 2 December accurate?
2. Can you confirm that you sent $10,000 to then-Councilor JuliaMC_ in exchange for a street being named after you?
3. You plead guilty to one count of Bribery in relation to this interaction. Can you tell us about what prompted you to do that?
4. Do you have any vendetta against JuliaMC_ that would prompt you to lie about this interaction?
5. Is there any other reason why you would be unable to testify accurately as to the events of that day?
6. Were you under any impression at the time that JuliaMC_ would not follow up on changing the street name?

@Anime Inspector Hello Mr. Mayor, thank you for your presence here today.

1. Can you confirm that then-Councilor JuliaMC_ changed the sign at the location in P-004 to say "VVirtue Lane Aventura"?
2. If yes, how were you made aware of this?
3. How long have you been Mayor of Aventura?
4. Would you say that you have a good understanding of the responsibilities and expectations of public officials in Aventura?
5. What was JuliaMC_'s specific position within Aventura?
6. Is changing street names within the typical purview of that position?
7. To your knowledge, was JuliaMC_'s decision to change the street name in exchange for $10,000 approved by any other Aventuran official?
8. Is there any official program in Aventura by which individuals can have streets renamed after them in exchange for payments to their personal account?
9. All in all, would you say that JuliaMC_'s decision to accept a monetary reward from an individual for the renaming of a street after that individual was consistent with her official duties in her position?

The Commonwealth reserves the right to ask follow-up questions.

 

[Smallfries]

In case it wasn't clear, the witnesses (@Anime Inspector & @vvirtue_) should answer at their earliest convenience. You don't need my permission here.

 

[Anime Inspector]

@vvirtue_ Thank you for your presence here today.

1. Is the recounting in this case filing of the interaction that occurred between you and JuliaMC_ on 2 December accurate?
2. Can you confirm that you sent $10,000 to then-Councilor JuliaMC_ in exchange for a street being named after you?
3. You plead guilty to one count of Bribery in relation to this interaction. Can you tell us about what prompted you to do that?
4. Do you have any vendetta against JuliaMC_ that would prompt you to lie about this interaction?
5. Is there any other reason why you would be unable to testify accurately as to the events of that day?
6. Were you under any impression at the time that JuliaMC_ would not follow up on changing the street name?

@Anime Inspector Hello Mr. Mayor, thank you for your presence here today.

1. Can you confirm that then-Councilor JuliaMC_ changed the sign at the location in P-004 to say "VVirtue Lane Aventura"?
2. If yes, how were you made aware of this?
3. How long have you been Mayor of Aventura?
4. Would you say that you have a good understanding of the responsibilities and expectations of public officials in Aventura?
5. What was JuliaMC_'s specific position within Aventura?
6. Is changing street names within the typical purview of that position?
7. To your knowledge, was JuliaMC_'s decision to change the street name in exchange for $10,000 approved by any other Aventuran official?
8. Is there any official program in Aventura by which individuals can have streets renamed after them in exchange for payments to their personal account?
9. All in all, would you say that JuliaMC_'s decision to accept a monetary reward from an individual for the renaming of a street after that individual was consistent with her official duties in her position?

The Commonwealth reserves the right to ask follow-up questions.

1. When I saw the sign it was "Virtue Lane Aventura" without the extra V.
2. I just happened to notice it when I was walking around Aventura.
3. April 2025.
4. I would say I have a good understanding.
5. Julia was our Head of Legal Affairs.
6. It is not unheard of for councillors to change the street signs, as the street signs are not official as we have been making a fully named street system for a while now.
7. There was no public discussion or approval made that I was made aware of.
8. There is not.
9. It was not.

 

[vvirtue_]

@vvirtue_ Thank you for your presence here today.

1. Is the recounting in this case filing of the interaction that occurred between you and JuliaMC_ on 2 December accurate?
2. Can you confirm that you sent $10,000 to then-Councilor JuliaMC_ in exchange for a street being named after you?
3. You plead guilty to one count of Bribery in relation to this interaction. Can you tell us about what prompted you to do that?
4. Do you have any vendetta against JuliaMC_ that would prompt you to lie about this interaction?
5. Is there any other reason why you would be unable to testify accurately as to the events of that day?
6. Were you under any impression at the time that JuliaMC_ would not follow up on changing the street name?

@Anime Inspector Hello Mr. Mayor, thank you for your presence here today.

1. Can you confirm that then-Councilor JuliaMC_ changed the sign at the location in P-004 to say "VVirtue Lane Aventura"?
2. If yes, how were you made aware of this?
3. How long have you been Mayor of Aventura?
4. Would you say that you have a good understanding of the responsibilities and expectations of public officials in Aventura?
5. What was JuliaMC_'s specific position within Aventura?
6. Is changing street names within the typical purview of that position?
7. To your knowledge, was JuliaMC_'s decision to change the street name in exchange for $10,000 approved by any other Aventuran official?
8. Is there any official program in Aventura by which individuals can have streets renamed after them in exchange for payments to their personal account?
9. All in all, would you say that JuliaMC_'s decision to accept a monetary reward from an individual for the renaming of a street after that individual was consistent with her official duties in her position?

The Commonwealth reserves the right to ask follow-up questions.

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. It didn't click for me at first that it was bribery, I was thinking it would be silly fun. When I realised, I turned myself in for two reasons: one, if I've committed a crime, it's only right I face punishment for it even if it wasn't my intention; two, it was far better for me to come forward of my own volition than try to hide it and have my crimes come to light at a much later date.
4. No, I do not. Julia and I have always been on friendly terms, in my opinion.
5. No.
6. I thought there was a chance it was a scam, however those concerns were alleviated when she followed through shortly after.

Apologies for the delay.

 

[Smallfries]

Does the Commonwealth have any follow-up questions?

 

[Kaiserin_]

No more questions, Your Honour.

 

[Smallfries]

No more questions, Your Honour.

Apologies, I thought I had moved us on. The defendant (@Julia_ & @asexualdinosaur) shall have twenty-four hours to present their questions to the witnesses.