Lawsuit: Pending Commonwealth of Redmont v. Stanley582 [2026] FCR 23

[Novakerbal]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Stanley582
Defendant

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

On March 17th, 2026 the Defendant Stanley582 posted a campaign advertisement in the #campaign channel of the main DC discord server. This campaign advertisement made several claims, including the desire to abolish a sales tax, make the income tax progressive, provide free public healthcare, and exempting residential plots and town plots from the Auction Levy. Notably, each of these desires are already present in legislation, making it impossible for such promises to be fulfilled by the Defendants political party. This amounts to Misleading Advertising as the Defendant disseminated an advertisement with misleading substance and presentation pursuant to the Criminal Code Act Part VII §12(a).

I. PARTIES
1. Stanley582 (Defendant)(Forum Account: Hamilton3812)
2. Commonwealth of Redmont (Prosecution)

II. FACTS
1. On March 17th, 2026, Stanley582 posted a Campaign advertisement in the #campaign channel containing statements including "Abolish sales tax to keep goods affordable." "Make income tax progressive so the rich pay more and the poor pay less." "Exempt R-Plots and Town Plots from the auction levy." and "Provide free public healthcare." (P-001).
2. There is currently no Sales Tax, as the Taxation Act §11(1) sets the Sales Tax percentage at 0%.
3. Income Taxation is already progressive, as the Taxation Act §4(2) establishes a progressive taxation bracket system where poor players pay no taxes on balances, while rich players pay more.
4. Residential Plots and Town Plots are already exempt from the auction levy, as the Plot Regulations Act §3(1)(a) states "Town plots, wild plots, and residential plots shall be exempt from both the tax itself and the calculations for the tax."
5. Free Public Healthcare is already enshrined in legislation, as the Redmontian Health Services Act establishes a state-funded free public healthcare system, Medicare. Furthermore, the DOH Medicare Policy establishes full coverage of all non-pharmacy treatments, making them free for all citizens who participate in Medicare.
5. All the above listed statements are misleading, as it is impossible for a political party or individual to promise a policy or legislation change when the desired outcome is already law.

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. 1 Count of Misleading Advertising, given that the dissemination of misleading statements is illegal pursuant to The Criminal Code Act Part VII, §12.

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. A 50 Penalty Unit Fine, and 0 minutes of imprisonment, with respect to One Count of Misleading Advertising.

Evidence List:

Spoiler: P-001

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 28th day of March, 2026

 

[Muggy21]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order to Show Cause

As per the Complaint, the Commonwealth alleges that Defendant made misleading statements in #campaign on the Discord. The Charter, as enshrined in §35 (6), permits the "Freedom of Political Communication." Without considering the specifics of what was misleading, the Court is concerned that Defendant's speech is otherwise covered under the Charter.


@Novakerbal The CW shall have 72 hours to express why this action does not conflict with Defendant's Charter rights.


The Federal Court in Commonwealth v. AtomicRedstoner [2026] FCR 6 dismissed charges for legal insufficiency, thus the District Court proceeds under a similar framework with a constitutional concern.


So ordered,
Judge Mug, in the District Court

 

[Novakerbal]

Your Honor,

May the Commonwealth have a 24 hour extension in order to properly respond?

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order to Show Cause

As per the Complaint, the Commonwealth alleges that Defendant made misleading statements in #campaign on the Discord. The Charter, as enshrined in §35 (6), permits the "Freedom of Political Communication." Without considering the specifics of what was misleading, the Court is concerned that Defendant's speech is otherwise covered under the Charter.


@Novakerbal The CW shall have 72 hours to express why this action does not conflict with Defendant's Charter rights.


The Federal Court in Commonwealth v. AtomicRedstoner [2026] FCR 6 dismissed charges for legal insufficiency, thus the District Court proceeds under a similar framework with a constitutional concern.


So ordered,
Judge Mug, in the District Court

 

[Muggy21]

Your Honor,

May the Commonwealth have a 24 hour extension in order to properly respond?

Absolutely,

 

[Novakerbal]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order to Show Cause

As per the Complaint, the Commonwealth alleges that Defendant made misleading statements in #campaign on the Discord. The Charter, as enshrined in §35 (6), permits the "Freedom of Political Communication." Without considering the specifics of what was misleading, the Court is concerned that Defendant's speech is otherwise covered under the Charter.


@Novakerbal The CW shall have 72 hours to express why this action does not conflict with Defendant's Charter rights.


The Federal Court in Commonwealth v. AtomicRedstoner [2026] FCR 6 dismissed charges for legal insufficiency, thus the District Court proceeds under a similar framework with a constitutional concern.


So ordered,
Judge Mug, in the District Court

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Your Honor,

The Commonwealth believes that the constitutional right to "Freedom of Political Communication" does not protect the Defendant from prosecution in this case. In support of this, the Commonwealth would like to examine past precedent surrounding Freedom of Political Communication and limitations on certain categories of speech. For the time being, the Commonwealth will focus on arguing whether false and misleading speech is broadly restricted within political advertisements, rather than the specifics of this case, which can be properly litigated if this case is allowed to proceed.

Freedom of Political Communication Precedent

The Honorable Judge asks whether the Defendant's speech is covered by the right to Freedom of Political Communication, in order to address this we must examine the framework established by the Supreme Court. In [2025] FCR 78 - Appeal, the Supreme Court examined the scope of the protections enshrined by the right to Freedom of Political Communication, particularly the court determined that "The mere fact that political communication may be impacted by an eviction of a plot does not create a constitutional claim of political communication. For such a claim to exist, a government entity must be directly targeting political communication itself, or the restriction imposed on the communicator so egregious and widespread (regardless of government intent) that the restriction serves as to totally suppress the communicator". In this we can see two criteria that can establish a valid claim of Political Communication, "directly targeting political communication itself" and "restriction serves as to totally suppress the communicator".

In examining the first criteria for Freedom of Political Communication to apply, we must also examine prior statements by the court. Particularly, the Supreme Court stated that "Therefore it is clear that the DCT has not specifically targeted the plots for political reasons, and thus cannot be the basis for any constitutional claim of political communication" and "We uphold the trial court’s determination that any policy that is broad and non-specific, or “neutral” (such as height limits, safety codes, material restrictions, etc.) are fully enforceable.". At no point has the DOJ, or the legislature in enacting the Part VII §12 of Criminal Code Act, directly targeted communication for political reasons. The Criminal Code Act is decidedly neutral in its handling of misleading advertising, and furthermore the DOJ retains full neutrality and equality in bringing suit based upon legislation. Unless the Honorable Judge believes that either the Criminal Code Act, or the actions of the DOJ, directly and maliciously targeted political communication, this criteria would not apply.

On the second criteria for Freedom of Political Communication, we must examine the sentencing sought under the Criminal Code Act, and its material effects upon political communication. In this case, the Commonwealth seeks the maximum penalty applicable under the Criminal Code Act, a 50 Penalty Unit fine. This fine is based solely upon specific misleading and outright false statements made, not the whole act of engaging with Political Communication as is the right of the defendant. The Commonwealth has not requested any material restriction on the defendants ability to post Political Communication in the future, and a fine derived from a specific false statement cannot reasonably serve to "totally suppress the communicator". This suit is a narrow and targeted fine, not an egregious and widespread restriction on communication. Even if the judge were to grant the requested sentencing, the defendant would have no restriction preventing future political communication.

Overall we can see that past Supreme Court precedent swings strongly towards the actions taken by the defendant not being protected by the right to Freedom of Political Communication. This application of the law would neither directly target political communication, nor would it impose any widespread or egregious restrictions. Therefore the Commonwealth maintains that in this instance, this prosecution does not conflict with the Defendants Charter Rights.

Limitations on Speech

Furthermore, the Commonwealth would like to examine past instances where legislation has restricted certain categories of speech, without infringing upon any right to Freedom of Political Communication. In particular, the Commonwealth seeks to examine xLayzur & Krix v. Politico [2023] FCR 62, where the Federal Court ruled that "Because these are specific, false claims about specific actions and results, the court believes that it is not protected by these Constitutional rights". Past precedent clearly shows that the Freedom of Political Communication is not absolute, and that laws regulating slander and libel can override these protections. It stands to reason that if the Judiciary has established that certain acts of slander and libel are not protected by Freedom of Political Communication, that other laws regulating published falsehoods would follow the same framework. The objective false nature of the statements made can be litigated during the proper course of this case. However the Commonwealth is confident that it is entirely lawful to prosecute an individual for publishing false statements, and that the constitution does not provide protection for those individuals.

Summary

The objective framework of Freedom of Political Communication is clear. The Judiciary has established that Freedom of Political Communication is not absolute, there are limitations on when it applies. While the Commonwealth believes that there is sufficient evidence to pursue this case, it understands that this is an untested law being prosecuted before this court. Should your honor find issue with the constitutionality of the law beyond our argumentation, the Commonwealth would find such a ruling immensely beneficial not only for this case but others it wishes to pursue.

 

[Muggy21]

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Your Honor,

The Commonwealth believes that the constitutional right to "Freedom of Political Communication" does not protect the Defendant from prosecution in this case. In support of this, the Commonwealth would like to examine past precedent surrounding Freedom of Political Communication and limitations on certain categories of speech. For the time being, the Commonwealth will focus on arguing whether false and misleading speech is broadly restricted within political advertisements, rather than the specifics of this case, which can be properly litigated if this case is allowed to proceed.

Freedom of Political Communication Precedent

The Honorable Judge asks whether the Defendant's speech is covered by the right to Freedom of Political Communication, in order to address this we must examine the framework established by the Supreme Court. In [2025] FCR 78 - Appeal, the Supreme Court examined the scope of the protections enshrined by the right to Freedom of Political Communication, particularly the court determined that "The mere fact that political communication may be impacted by an eviction of a plot does not create a constitutional claim of political communication. For such a claim to exist, a government entity must be directly targeting political communication itself, or the restriction imposed on the communicator so egregious and widespread (regardless of government intent) that the restriction serves as to totally suppress the communicator". In this we can see two criteria that can establish a valid claim of Political Communication, "directly targeting political communication itself" and "restriction serves as to totally suppress the communicator".

In examining the first criteria for Freedom of Political Communication to apply, we must also examine prior statements by the court. Particularly, the Supreme Court stated that "Therefore it is clear that the DCT has not specifically targeted the plots for political reasons, and thus cannot be the basis for any constitutional claim of political communication" and "We uphold the trial court’s determination that any policy that is broad and non-specific, or “neutral” (such as height limits, safety codes, material restrictions, etc.) are fully enforceable.". At no point has the DOJ, or the legislature in enacting the Part VII §12 of Criminal Code Act, directly targeted communication for political reasons. The Criminal Code Act is decidedly neutral in its handling of misleading advertising, and furthermore the DOJ retains full neutrality and equality in bringing suit based upon legislation. Unless the Honorable Judge believes that either the Criminal Code Act, or the actions of the DOJ, directly and maliciously targeted political communication, this criteria would not apply.

On the second criteria for Freedom of Political Communication, we must examine the sentencing sought under the Criminal Code Act, and its material effects upon political communication. In this case, the Commonwealth seeks the maximum penalty applicable under the Criminal Code Act, a 50 Penalty Unit fine. This fine is based solely upon specific misleading and outright false statements made, not the whole act of engaging with Political Communication as is the right of the defendant. The Commonwealth has not requested any material restriction on the defendants ability to post Political Communication in the future, and a fine derived from a specific false statement cannot reasonably serve to "totally suppress the communicator". This suit is a narrow and targeted fine, not an egregious and widespread restriction on communication. Even if the judge were to grant the requested sentencing, the defendant would have no restriction preventing future political communication.

Overall we can see that past Supreme Court precedent swings strongly towards the actions taken by the defendant not being protected by the right to Freedom of Political Communication. This application of the law would neither directly target political communication, nor would it impose any widespread or egregious restrictions. Therefore the Commonwealth maintains that in this instance, this prosecution does not conflict with the Defendants Charter Rights.

Limitations on Speech

Furthermore, the Commonwealth would like to examine past instances where legislation has restricted certain categories of speech, without infringing upon any right to Freedom of Political Communication. In particular, the Commonwealth seeks to examine xLayzur & Krix v. Politico [2023] FCR 62, where the Federal Court ruled that "Because these are specific, false claims about specific actions and results, the court believes that it is not protected by these Constitutional rights". Past precedent clearly shows that the Freedom of Political Communication is not absolute, and that laws regulating slander and libel can override these protections. It stands to reason that if the Judiciary has established that certain acts of slander and libel are not protected by Freedom of Political Communication, that other laws regulating published falsehoods would follow the same framework. The objective false nature of the statements made can be litigated during the proper course of this case. However the Commonwealth is confident that it is entirely lawful to prosecute an individual for publishing false statements, and that the constitution does not provide protection for those individuals.

Summary

The objective framework of Freedom of Political Communication is clear. The Judiciary has established that Freedom of Political Communication is not absolute, there are limitations on when it applies. While the Commonwealth believes that there is sufficient evidence to pursue this case, it understands that this is an untested law being prosecuted before this court. Should your honor find issue with the constitutionality of the law beyond our argumentation, the Commonwealth would find such a ruling immensely beneficial not only for this case but others it wishes to pursue.

I'm going to issue a long-form order, but are you specifically requesting that I rule on the constitutionality of the act? If so, the CW may seek to remove this action to the Federal Court if it wishes; I won't do that sua sponte.

 

[Novakerbal]

I'm going to issue a long-form order, but are you specifically requesting that I rule on the constitutionality of the act? If so, the CW may seek to remove this action to the Federal Court if it wishes; I won't do that sua sponte.

The Commonwealth does wish for a ruling on the constitutionality of this act, and whether it can be enforced. We would seek to remove this action to the Federal Court if necessary.

 

[Muggy21]

Case removed to the Federal Court, now under [2026] FCR 23.

I'll retain the case as Judge.