Lawsuit: Dismissed Commonwealth of Redmont v. Inknet [2025] DCR 59

Writ of Summons

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

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

Motion

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

Your Honor,

The Defendant requests that the charges be dismissed against them, and in support respectfully alleges:

1. Lack of Claim (Rule 5.5). While there have been charges filed, the Prosecution has not provided a single shred of evidence nor any exhibits in support any of claim in their court filing. Under Rule 5.5, dismissal is warranted "against an claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge". It is plainly obvious that Prosecution has not presented any evidence to support the criminal charge, which certainly means that the Prosecution has presented "insufficient evidence" in this case.

As this is a criminal case, the Defendant asks for dismissal with prejudice to both protect the Defendant's rights against double-jeopardy and to dissuade the Commonwealth from filing evidence-free criminal complaints in the future.

Case Filing

Brief​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
AMICUS BRIEF by the Redmont Civil Liberties Union for [2025] DCR 59

I. ACADEMIC CHARGES ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
1)The Constitution of the Commonwealth, under Const. Part IV § 32 (9), mandates that all those accused of criminality be “informed of the nature and cause of the accusation” and to a “fair trial.”
2)Further, the Constitution, under Const. Part IV § 32 (7) and (13), mandates that citizen’s rights are inalienable and are equal in effect to that of any other fellow citizen.
3)The Legal Damages Act, its existence and its application across the majority of actions before this Court, establishes that litigation is time-intensive and expensive.
4)An academic prosecution is the hypothetical litigation of a charge without a proper origin in an actual, justiciable allegation, effectively rendering it frivolous, where frivolous is defined as “lodging a legal case that has no serious purpose or value.”
5) With paragraphs 1-4 in consideration, the Commonwealth must file criminal charges that have the following attributes

1. Reasonable chance of success -> Const. Part IV § 32 (13) requires that all citizens be equal. Frivolous criminal litigation degrades a player’s natural right to enjoy Redmont.
2. Legality -> The Criminal Code Act restricts charges to official definitions. Deviating from this Act would deprive a citizen of his or her right under Const. Part IV § 32 (9), which mandates that a defendant be “informed.” One can’t be reasonably informed of a criminal allegation that doesn’t exist under law.
3. Lawful Interest -> The Government can’t use its discretionary powers in a manner to deprive citizens of their rights under the Constitution, to do so would be a violation of Const. Part IV § 32 (7), (13). See MrFluffy2U94 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 58

6) In the humble opinion of the RCLU, this prosecution fails all three categories.
7) For 5a), the Prosecution has failed to provide any evidence, instead relies solely on self-certified facts. The Commonwealth must provide, some evidence, at the complaint stage.
8) For 5b), the charge alleged does not exist in the Criminal Code Act. For this prosecution to be proper, both charges must be filed independently. (There should be two allegations, not one).
9) For 5c), the Government does not have limitless authority to police speech. In MrFluffy v. Commonwealth, the Federal Court held that discrimination, as defined under Const. Part IV § 32 (13), is “the exclusion or limitation … based on arbitrary reasons.”
10) Since the Prosecution fails as a matter of law, as described in paragraphs 1-8, a dismissal with prejudice is warranted.

Argument I TLDR: Academic prosecutions are unconstitutional because they violate citizen's right to be informed, to a fair trial, and to equality under the Constitution. Since the charges lack evidence, legal specificity, and a lawful government interest, they must be dismissed with prejudice.

II. COMMERCIAL STANDARDS ACT REQUIRES A TRANSACTION
1) The Defendant is charged with “Conspiracy of Exploitation of New Players.” under the new regime of the Criminal Code Act § 7(10); § 9(22).
2) The Exploitation of New Players charge requires “exploits” in relation to new players, where this act relies on the Commercial Standards Act § 6(a). The CSA defines exploitation to be defined as an intentional fraud
3) Fraud, as defined in the best light for the prosecution, is the intentional execution of a misleading transaction, where Fraud is formally defined as “An intentional or reckless misrepresentation or omission of an important fact, especially a material one, to a victim who justifiably relies on that misrepresentation; and the victim party or entity suffered actual, quantifiable injury or damages as a result of the misrepresentation or omission.”
4) Even if the best light interpretation of the Commonwealth’s claims and facts are taken into account, no transaction occurred.
5) Without a transaction, a fundamental illegal act required for the exploitation of a player is absent.
6) In fairness to the Commonwealth, the charge is conspiracy to commit the exploitation, not the exploitation itself.
7) This distinction is not to the Prosecution’s benefit; The Prosecution now has the displeasure of proving intent by the utterance of a single line.
8) Although hypothetically possible, the Prosecution’s burden is immense. The Constitution grants freedom of speech with reasonable limitations; Freedom of Speech is not a privilege at the discretion of the Commonwealth.
9) On a plain reading of the Criminal Code Act Part I (2), the Prosecution must avoid excessively construing the Act’s provisions “in a manner that produces absurd, unjust, or unintended results.”
10) If the Prosecution’s only evidence of this offense is the utterance of what a reasonable person would interpret to be a non-serious offer, any continued prosecution would results in an absurd limitation of freedom of speech.

Argument II TLDR-> The Commercial Standards Act, on which Criminal Code Act § 7(10) relies, defines New Player Exploitation as an action arising from fraud. Fraud can’t occur without a transaction, thus the Commonwealth must read the Defendant’s mind to incriminate him.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO NOLLE PROSEQUI

The Commonwealth moves to drop legal charges. Due to an error by the filing prosecutor, no evidence associated with the criminal charges was filed with this criminal action. Due to this, and following a reassessment of the severity of the alleged charges, in addition to a reconsideration of the actual evidence gathered by the DOJ, the Commonwealth no longer wishes to pursue criminal action.

Plea

COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Prosecution

v.

INKNET
Defendant

I. ENTRY OF PLEA

1. 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 15 day of August 2025