Lawsuit: Pending Commonwealth of Redmont v. MC20masarati [2025] FCR 57

ToadKing

ToadKing

Citizen
Justice Department
5th Anniversary
T04DS74
T04DS74
State Prosecutor
Joined
Apr 4, 2025
Messages
39

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION

Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

MC20masarati (aka "undatheradar")
Defendant

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

The Department of Justice has received evidence that the Defendant has engaged in the practice of law, without possessing the correct legal credentials as required by the Modern Legal Reform Act.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES
1. Commonwealth of Redmont
2. MC20masarati (aka "undatheradar")

II. FACTS
1. The Defendant first engaged in the practice of law without any valid legal qualifications in the case fluffywaafelz v. undatheradar [2025] FCR 54 (P-002), where as the defendant in that case, they represented themselves and filed two separate motions without possessing any legal credentials. (P-001)
2. On the 4th June 2025, at 01:28 (UTC+1), the Defendant obtained the rank of Solicitor.
3. Subsequently, on 4th June 2025, the Defendant filed their own case (P-003) in the Federal Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont, without the necessary legal rank of Barrister.
4. The Federal Court dismissed the Defendant's case sua sponte, with the presiding judge ruling that the Defendant "does not have the legal credentials defined in the Modern Legal Reform Act to file not only this case but any case in any court."
5. Under the Modern Legal Reform Act, only Barristers with appropriate specializations or Attorneys may file cases in Federal Court, unless under proper supervision as defined in Section 7.
6. The Defendant was representing themselves in both instances and was not under the supervision of a qualified Attorney.
7. The Defendant's actions constitute both practicing law without valid qualification and filing cases in courts beyond their qualification rank.

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:

1. Legal Fraud - In violation of Section 8(1) of the Modern Legal Reform Act, the Defendant engaged in the practice of law without any valid legal qualification by representing themselves and filing motions in the case fluffywaafelz v. undatheradar [2025] FCR 54 without possessing any legal credentials.
2. Legal Malpractice - In violation of Section 8(2) of the Modern Legal Reform Act, the Defendant practiced law and filed cases in Federal Court beyond their qualification rank, as they possessed only the rank of Solicitor at the time of filing.

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

1. A fine of $7,500 for Legal Fraud, as this constitutes a first offense under Section 8(1)(c)(i) of the Modern Legal Reform Act.
2. A fine of $7,500 for Legal Malpractice, as this constitutes a first offense under Section 8(2)(c)(i) of the Modern Legal Reform Act.

EVIDENCE:
- Defendant's lack of qualifications
1748990916961-png.55742
- FluffyWaafelz v. undatheradar case showing Defendant's first instance of unauthorized practice of law
Patototongo1

Lawsuit: Adjourned Thread 'fluffywaafelz v. undatheradar [2025] FCR 54'

Case Filing



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


fluffywaafelz (represented by Mezimoří Law)
Plaintiff

v.

2.- ~undatheradar~ MC20masarati (a.k.a. "undatheradar")
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

The Plaintiff brings this action to recover funds unlawfully retained and misappropriated by the Defendant, undatheradar, in connection with a high-stakes poker game involving a $1,000,000 buy-in from each party...
Click to expand...

  • Like
  • Skull
- Link to Defendant's case in FCR
undatheradar

Lawsuit: Dismissed Thread 'MC20masarati v. TheExchange [2025] FCR 55'

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

MC20masarati
Plaintiff

v.

The Exchange
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On June 3rd, 2025, the emergency asset freeze previously in effect was partially lifted, specifically unfreezing my holdings within The Exchange. At this time, only my bank balances and stock positions remain restricted, not liquid funds stored in a securities institution. Nonetheless, The Exchange blatantly ignored this and refuses to unfreeze my money.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES
1. MC20masarati...


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 5th day of June 2025

 
Last edited:

Writ of Summons


@undatheradar is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Commonwealth of Redmont v. Mc20masarati [2025] FCR 58

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.

 

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

The Prosecution moves that the Court enter a default judgment in this case, for the following reasons:

1. The Defendant, MC20masarati (aka "undatheradar"), was duly served with a Writ of Summons, requiring their appearance before the Court.

2. The Defendant has failed to appear or respond within the 72-hour period prescribed in the Writ of Summons, nor have they submitted any filings or motions in their defence.

3. The Prosecution has submitted a full Complaint, including detailed factual allegations, charges, and supporting evidence, sufficient to support a finding of liability.

The Prosecution respectfully requests that the Court:

Enter a Default Judgment against the Defendant, MC20masarati (aka "undatheradar");
Impose the proposed sentence as stated in the original Complaint:

  1. A fine of $7,500 for Legal Fraud under Section 8(1)(c)(i) of the Modern Legal Reform Act;
  2. A fine of $7,500 for Legal Malpractice under Section 8(2)(c)(i) of the Modern Legal Reform Act.

 
ToadKing said:

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

The Prosecution moves that the Court enter a default judgment in this case, for the following reasons:

1. The Defendant, MC20masarati (aka "undatheradar"), was duly served with a Writ of Summons, requiring their appearance before the Court.

2. The Defendant has failed to appear or respond within the 72-hour period prescribed in the Writ of Summons, nor have they submitted any filings or motions in their defence.

3. The Prosecution has submitted a full Complaint, including detailed factual allegations, charges, and supporting evidence, sufficient to support a finding of liability.

The Prosecution respectfully requests that the Court:

Enter a Default Judgment against the Defendant, MC20masarati (aka "undatheradar");
Impose the proposed sentence as stated in the original Complaint:

  1. A fine of $7,500 for Legal Fraud under Section 8(1)(c)(i) of the Modern Legal Reform Act;
  2. A fine of $7,500 for Legal Malpractice under Section 8(2)(c)(i) of the Modern Legal Reform Act.

Click to expand...
Motion for Default Judgement Denied.

Its only been about 50 hours since the defendant was summonsed and not 72. They still have time to appear
 
The defense has 48 hours to provide their answer to complaint.
 

Plea


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
PLEA

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

MC20masarati
Defendant

I. ENTRY OF PLEA
The defense pleas NOT GUILTY on all charges.


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 June 2025

 
We will now be entering discovery. Discovery will last 5 days starting now.
 
ToadKing said:

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION

Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

MC20masarati (aka "undatheradar")
Defendant

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



I. PARTIES
1. Commonwealth of Redmont
2. MC20masarati (aka "undatheradar")

II. FACTS
1. The Defendant first engaged in the practice of law without any valid legal qualifications in the case fluffywaafelz v. undatheradar [2025] FCR 54 (P-002), where as the defendant in that case, they represented themselves and filed two separate motions without possessing any legal credentials. (P-001)
2. On the 4th June 2025, at 01:28 (UTC+1), the Defendant obtained the rank of Solicitor.
3. Subsequently, on 4th June 2025, the Defendant filed their own case (P-003) in the Federal Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont, without the necessary legal rank of Barrister.
4. The Federal Court dismissed the Defendant's case sua sponte, with the presiding judge ruling that the Defendant "does not have the legal credentials defined in the Modern Legal Reform Act to file not only this case but any case in any court."
5. Under the Modern Legal Reform Act, only Barristers with appropriate specializations or Attorneys may file cases in Federal Court, unless under proper supervision as defined in Section 7.
6. The Defendant was representing themselves in both instances and was not under the supervision of a qualified Attorney.
7. The Defendant's actions constitute both practicing law without valid qualification and filing cases in courts beyond their qualification rank.

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:

1. Legal Fraud - In violation of Section 8(1) of the Modern Legal Reform Act, the Defendant engaged in the practice of law without any valid legal qualification by representing themselves and filing motions in the case fluffywaafelz v. undatheradar [2025] FCR 54 without possessing any legal credentials.
2. Legal Malpractice - In violation of Section 8(2) of the Modern Legal Reform Act, the Defendant practiced law and filed cases in Federal Court beyond their qualification rank, as they possessed only the rank of Solicitor at the time of filing.

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

1. A fine of $7,500 for Legal Fraud, as this constitutes a first offense under Section 8(1)(c)(i) of the Modern Legal Reform Act.
2. A fine of $7,500 for Legal Malpractice, as this constitutes a first offense under Section 8(2)(c)(i) of the Modern Legal Reform Act.

EVIDENCE:
- Defendant's lack of qualifications

1748990916961-png.55742
- FluffyWaafelz v. undatheradar case showing Defendant's first instance of unauthorized practice of law
Patototongo1

Lawsuit: Adjourned Thread 'fluffywaafelz v. undatheradar [2025] FCR 54'

Case Filing



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


fluffywaafelz (represented by Mezimoří Law)
Plaintiff

v.

2.- ~undatheradar~ MC20masarati (a.k.a. "undatheradar")
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

The Plaintiff brings this action to recover funds unlawfully retained and misappropriated by the Defendant, undatheradar, in connection with a high-stakes poker game involving a $1,000,000 buy-in from each party...
Click to expand...

  • Like
  • Skull
- Link to Defendant's case in FCR
undatheradar

Lawsuit: Dismissed Thread 'MC20masarati v. TheExchange [2025] FCR 55'

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

MC20masarati
Plaintiff

v.

The Exchange
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On June 3rd, 2025, the emergency asset freeze previously in effect was partially lifted, specifically unfreezing my holdings within The Exchange. At this time, only my bank balances and stock positions remain restricted, not liquid funds stored in a securities institution. Nonetheless, The Exchange blatantly ignored this and refuses to unfreeze my money.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES
1. MC20masarati...


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 5th day of June 2025

Click to expand...
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
INTERROGATORY

The defense reserves the right to ask the opposing party up to five questions that must be answered truthfully:
1. Isn't it true the judge in fluffywaafelz v. undatheradar ruled that I could defend myself when the question came up (up until the point he declared I needed to seek legal counsel)?
2. Isn't it true the case I filed was immediately dismissed?
3. Isn't it true I only filed one Federal Court case without being a barrister?
4. Isn't it true that MZ law, which the prosecutor works for, is the opposing counsel against me in numerous cases?
5. Why am I the only one being prosecuted for this supposed offense, which many others have done both historically and recently?




Objection


OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your honor, the prosecution edited their initial filing three days after they posted it and swore to its truthfulness, after summons were issued.


image.png
 
undatheradar said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
INTERROGATORY

The defense reserves the right to ask the opposing party up to five questions that must be answered truthfully:
1. Isn't it true the judge in fluffywaafelz v. undatheradar ruled that I could defend myself when the question came up (up until the point he declared I needed to seek legal counsel)?
2. Isn't it true the case I filed was immediately dismissed?
3. Isn't it true I only filed one Federal Court case without being a barrister?
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - LEADING QUESTION
All 3 of these questions are leading questions, clearly suggesting a desired answer and including information that the Defendant seeks to confirm.


undatheradar said:
4. Isn't it true that MZ law, which the prosecutor works for, is the opposing counsel against me in numerous cases?
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE
This question is not relevant to the case.

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - INFLAMMATORY
This question is intended to provoke prejudice rather than seek factual information.


undatheradar said:
5. Why am I the only one being prosecuted for this supposed offense, which many others have done both historically and recently?
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE
This question assumes both that Defendant is the only one being prosecuted for this supposed offense, as well as that this offense has been committed by many others both historically and recently. Neither of these assumptions are facts in evidence or even supported by any evidence.

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