Lawsuit: Pending Commonwealth of Redmont v. urb5n [2025] FCR 83

Talion77

Talion77

Chairman of NER
Justice Department
Construction & Transport Department
Health Department
Interior Department
Education Department
Oakridge Resident
Talion77
Talion77
State Prosecutor
Joined
Jun 3, 2025
Messages
74

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION


Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

urb5n
Defendant

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

Recently, it was brought to the Commonwealth’s knowledge that urb5n conspired to exploit the wealth of new players for his own gain. This malicious act needs to be brought to justice.

I. PARTIES
1. Commonwealth of Redmont (represented by Talion77)
2. urb5n

II. FACTS

1. A few days prior to today, the Defendant stated the following in general-chat: „METALICU_S do /pay urb5n 1000 fr fr“. (P-001)

2. Shortly after that, the Defendant stated the following: „roxo_doxo you can continue if you do /pay urb5n 1215“. (P-001)

3. These statements both told new players to pay the Defendant their starter money, in case of roxo_doxo also additional money acquired by other means.

4. These statements can be used to mislead new players, exploiting their inexperience and wealth for unlawful gain.

5. The Criminal Code Act lists „Exploitation of New Players“ as an indictable offence with a penalty of up to 200 Penalty Units and up to 10 minutes imprisonment.

6. urb5n admits, in the context of a RBI investigation, to having told new players to send him their starter money. (P-002)

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

1. Two counts of Conspiracy to commit Exploitation of New Players as per the Criminal Code Act. The Defendant tried to exploit the inexperience and wealth of METALICU_S and roxo_doxo for unlawful gain, by telling them to pay him 1000$ and 1215$ respectively. The new players have not carried out these actions to the knowledge of the Commonwealth, but the statements clearly show intent to the above. This is also supported by the admission of guilt.

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

1. A fine of 200 Penalty Units and 10 minutes of imprisonment on two counts of Conspiracy to commit Exploitation of New Players, as per the Criminal Code Act.

List of Witnesses:

1. urb5n (Defendant)
2. pricelessAgrari (RBI Investigator)

List of Evidence:

image.png

IMG_2900.png

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 13th day of August 2025

 
Last edited:

Writ of Summons


@urban is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case ofThe Commonwealth of Redmont v. urb5n [2025] FCR 83

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.

 
how do i like appear in federal court i dont know shit about this
 
urban said:
how do i like appear in federal court i dont know shit about this
Click to expand...
You made your appearance, you have 48 hours to provide an answer to complaint.

You have the option to request a Public Defender if you wish.
 
I wish JamesTheSlay to represent me in the Commonwealth of Redmont v. urb5n [2025] FCR 83
 

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The new players in question, "METALIC_US", and "Roxo_Doxo", did not accept and further more this was an obvious Joke that if they did accept, which there is no evidence they did, was a mistake on the player.

 
Permission to respond, your honor.
 
James said:

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The new players in question, "METALIC_US", and "Roxo_Doxo", did not accept and further more this was an obvious Joke that if they did accept, which there is no evidence they did, was a mistake on the player.

Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

By filing the motion to dismiss, defendant has violated Rule 5.1 of the Court Rules and Procedures, as he has not specified the rule which he wishes to file the motion under.

 
Your Honour,

The RCLU has an interest in criminal prosecutions in the Commonwealth. May we file an amicus curiae brief in regard to the defendant's constitutional rights?
 
Muggy21 said:
Your Honour,

The RCLU has an interest in criminal prosecutions in the Commonwealth. May we file an amicus curiae brief in regard to the defendant's constitutional rights?
Click to expand...
Your Honor, permission to respond.
 

Motion


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

The new players in question, "METALIC_US", and "Roxo_Doxo", did not accept and further more this was an obvious Joke that if they did accept, which there is no evidence they did, was a mistake on the player.


I meant to do nolle prosequi
 
James said:

Motion


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

The new players in question, "METALIC_US", and "Roxo_Doxo", did not accept and further more this was an obvious Joke that if they did accept, which there is no evidence they did, was a mistake on the player.


I meant to do nolle prosequi
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor, as per the Motions Guide, Motions to Nolle Prosqui are only to be filed by the prosecution.

 
James said:

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The new players in question, "METALIC_US", and "Roxo_Doxo", did not accept and further more this was an obvious Joke that if they did accept, which there is no evidence they did, was a mistake on the player.

Click to expand...
Motion Denied. You did not cite a rule to dismiss under.

Talion77 said:

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

By filing the motion to dismiss, defendant has violated Rule 5.1 of the Court Rules and Procedures, as he has not specified the rule which he wishes to file the motion under.

Click to expand...
Sustained.

Muggy21 said:
Your Honour,

The RCLU has an interest in criminal prosecutions in the Commonwealth. May we file an amicus curiae brief in regard to the defendant's constitutional rights?
Click to expand...
Granted. You have 24 hours.

Talion77 said:
Your Honor, permission to respond.
Click to expand...
Denied.

James said:

Motion


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

The new players in question, "METALIC_US", and "Roxo_Doxo", did not accept and further more this was an obvious Joke that if they did accept, which there is no evidence they did, was a mistake on the player.


I meant to do nolle prosequi
Click to expand...
Motion denied. Nolle Prosequi is a motion only the plaintiff/prosecution can make.

Talion77 said:

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor, as per the Motions Guide, Motions to Nolle Prosqui are only to be filed by the prosecution.

Click to expand...
Sustained.
 

Brief


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
AMICUS BRIEF by the Redmont Civil Liberties Union for
Commonwealth v. urb5n [2025] FCR 83


I. COMMERCIAL STANDARDS ACT REQUIRES A TRANSACTION

  1. The Defendant is charged with “Conspiracy of Exploitation of New Players” under the Criminal Code Act § 7(10); § 9(22), which relies on the Commercial Standards Act § 6(a) defining exploitation as intentional fraud.

  2. Fraud, even in the best light for the Prosecution, requires “an intentional or reckless misrepresentation or omission of an important fact … [with] actual, quantifiable injury or damages,” yet no transaction occurred here.

  3. Without a transaction, the fundamental illegal act necessary for the exploitation of a player is absent.

  4. Although the charge is conspiracy, this still forces the Prosecution to prove intent based only on the utterance of a single line.

  5. Under Criminal Code Act Part I (2), construing a non-serious utterance as criminal would yield “absurd, unjust, or unintended results,” and therefore any continued prosecution unjustly limits freedom of equality.

II. ADMISSIONS OF GUILT MUST BE NARROWLY CONSTRUED.
  1. The Commonwealth states an admission of guilt exists in P-002. The RCLU respectfully submits that’s a stretch, borderline on perjury.

  2. As a preface, the Commonwealth submits an interrogation of the defendant, but does not immediately offer proof of compliance with the Miranda Warning Act (3), where citizens are “must be advised, that they have the right to remain silent.”
  3. First, the RBI investigator asks “Are you aware that exploiting new players is illegal?”
    1. This question is irrelevant. Even if guilty, mere awareness of the law does not meet culpability.
    2. The Defendant answers in the affirmative.
  4. Second, the RBI investigator asks “Do you admit to telling new players to send their starter money to you in general?”
    1. This question is an admission of potentially immoral behavior, not criminal intent.
    2. To equate it with exploitation ignores the essential requirement of fraudulent intent or unlawful gain.
    3. For example, if a shop owner sells a service or item to a new player at a fair price, that transaction is legal and voluntary, and the mere fact the buyer is a new player does not convert a legitimate exchange into exploitation, even if it involves “starter money.”
    4. By the Commonwealth’s logic, any seller dealing with a new player could be branded as exploitative, which would criminalize ordinary commerce and erase the distinction between lawful business and fraud.
    5. The Defendant’s answer is therefore not proof of exploitation but merely acknowledgment of an exchange that, without deception or coercion, may be legally permissible.
5.The alleged admission is faulty and should be disregarded.

III. LACK OF ACTUAL VICTIM OR INJURY
  1. Even if the Defendant’s statements are taken at face value, the record shows no new player actually transferred money to him.

  2. Fraud and exploitation under the Commercial Standards Act require a victim who suffered actual, quantifiable injury.

  3. Criminal liability cannot rest on hypothetical or speculative harm, otherwise every failed scam or joke would be criminalized.

  4. Without an injured party, the essential element of exploitation is missing, and the charge cannot stand.

For all aforementioned reasons, the RCLU prays for dismissal.


[\brief]

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