Lawsuit: Pending Commonwealth of Redmont v. Brustklefurry [2025] DCR 84

Novakerbal

Novakerbal

Citizen
Representative
Justice Department
Supporter
Willow Resident
Statesman
NovaKerbal
NovaKerbal
Representative
Joined
Aug 11, 2025
Messages
17

Case Filing


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION


The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Brustklefurry
Defendant

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

On the 18th of October, 2025 the Commonwealth was informed of the potential sale of Illicit Items on the plot Landmark-03. Upon further investigation, one chestshop operating under "Adventure1", a firm owned by the defendant, was found to have FeatherPluck Tonic for sale, a Pharmaceutical. This amounts to Unauthorized Medical Sales as The Department of Health Pharmacy Registry does not list Landmark-03 as a registered pharmacy.

I. PARTIES
1. Brustklefurry (Defendant)
2. Commonwealth of Redmont (Prosecution)

II. FACTS
1. On the 18th of October, 2025, one Chestshop selling FeatherPluck Tonic on behalf of the firm Adventure1 was discovered on the plot Landmark-03 (P-001).
2. Brustklefurry is the owner of the firm Adventure1 (P-001).
3. The aforementioned chestshop consists of a private container owned by the Defendant, Brustklefurry (P-005, Timestamp: 0:31)
4. Brustklefurry currently retains a Pharmacist License (P-002).
5. The Department of Health(DOH) Licensed Pharmacy Registry does not list Landmark-03 as a Registered Pharmacy (P-003).
6. The Commonwealth seized four total illicit items from the aforementioned chestshop (P-004).
7. The Criminal Code Act defines Unauthorized Medical Sale as "distributes, sells, or traffics any health treatment item restricted to Doctors or Pharmacists, or sells in a pharmacy not approved". While the Defendant does possess a Pharmacist license, the plot Landmark-03 is not an approved Pharmacy by the DOH, thus violating the second definition for Unauthorised Medical Sale.

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. One Count of Unauthorized Medical Sale. Given that Landmark-03 is a non-registered pharmacy, the sale of a Pharmaceutical product at this location by the defendant is illegal pursuant to The Criminal Code Act Part VI, §6.

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. A 50 Penalty Unit Fine, and 10 minutes of imprisonment, with respect to One Count of Unauthorized Medical Sale.

Evidence:

DB_Ownership.png
Brustklefurry_About.png
Pharmacy_Registry.png
Search_Warrant_Return.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 21st day of October, 2025

 
Last edited:

Writ of Summons

@Brustkile, is required to appear before the district Court in the case of Commonwealth of Redmont v. Brustklefurry [2025] DCR 84

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.

 
Defendant has failed to appear. A public defender will be assigned shortly.
 
dearev said:
Defendant has failed to appear. A public defender will be assigned shortly.
Click to expand...
Your Honour, I am present as the assigned Public Defender.
 

Plea


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
PLEA

Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Brustklefurry
Defendant

I. ENTRY OF PLEA
1. NOT GUILTY.

By making this submission, I agree that 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 twenty-fifth day of October two-thousand-and-twenty-five

 
Discovery shall now begin lasting 5 (five) days. it may be ended early if both parties agree.
 
Your Honour,

Pursuant to Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), the Defendant submits the following interrogatories to the Prosecution:
1. Who was the assigned Investigator to this Prosecution?

The Defence reserves its right to ask further interrogatories in accordance with Rule 4.8.
 
Imza said:
Your Honour,

Pursuant to Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), the Defendant submits the following interrogatories to the Prosecution:
1. Who was the assigned Investigator to this Prosecution?

The Defence reserves its right to ask further interrogatories in accordance with Rule 4.8.
Click to expand...
The investigator who was assigned to this prosecution by the Commonwealth is Rookieblue14.
 
Your Honour,

Pursuant to Rule 4.6 (Submission of Discovery, Voluntarily), the Defence voluntarily submits the following pieces evidence:
1761426384731.png
1761426435457.png

The Defence reserves the right to submit additional evidence voluntarily in accordance with Rule 4.6.
 
Your Honor,

The Commonwealth wishes to enter the following piece of evidence into Discovery at this time,

The entirety of the Premise Check video(P-005), recorded by Rookieblue14 during the aforementioned investigation.

 
Your Honour,

The Prosecution would like to notify the Court of the following amendment being made to our Complaint:

§II, Facts, shall be amended to insert the following after Fact 2. (Remaining facts shall be renumbered appropriately) "3. The aforementioned chestshop consists of a private container owned by the Defendant, Brustklefurry (P-005, Timestamp: 0:31)".

This amendment is being made for the sake of clarity, as the Prosecution would like to clarify the fact that while the chestshop itself was operating under the firm "Adventure1", it is also a fact of the case that the Defendant themself were responsible for constructing the aforementioned illegal chestshop.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Novakerbal said:
Your Honour,

The Prosecution would like to notify the Court of the following amendment being made to our Complaint:

§II, Facts, shall be amended to insert the following after Fact 2. (Remaining facts shall be renumbered appropriately) "3. The aforementioned chestshop consists of a private container owned by the Defendant, Brustklefurry (P-005, Timestamp: 0:31)".

This amendment is being made for the sake of clarity, as the Prosecution would like to clarify the fact that while the chestshop itself was operating under the firm "Adventure1", it is also a fact of the case that the Defendant themself were responsible for constructing the aforementioned illegal chestshop.
Click to expand...
amendment has been acknowledged by the court.
 

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY, ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

The Commonwealth claims:

"[...]it is also a fact of the case that the Defendant themself were responsible for constructing the aforementioned illegal chestshop." [Emphasis Mine]
Click to expand...

1. Perjury
The Commonwealth is aware that the Defendant was not responsible for the construction of the illegal chestshop, as P-005 (evidence submitted by the Commonwealth), merely shows that the Defendant constructed a barrel, but not that they had constructed the chestshop. The Commonwealth has knowingly made a false statement under oath by claiming that this was a fact of the case.

2. Assumes Facts Not In Evidence
The Commonwealth states that the Defendant constructed an illegal chesthop; however, they have not provided any evidence to support this claim. Quite the contrary, P-005 shows that the Defendant did place down a barrel, but not that they had created a chesthop.


Therefore, the Defence respectfully requests that the Court strike out the section where appropriate.

 

Motion


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

Your honor, the Commonwealth requests that you recuse yourself from this case on the grounds of Relationship with Parties. Both your signature and the GlobalCenter Corporation Company Docket clearly identifies you as the CEO and President, of GlobalCenter. Furthermore, the Public Defender assigned to this case, Imza has a signature listing themself as the Chairman of the Board of Directors at GlobalCenter Corporation, as well as the aforementioned Company Docket listing Imza as the COO.

This represents a clear and blatant violation of Relationship with Parties, as both parties have a clear business relationship, with the honorable judge being in a position beholden to the whims of the Board of Directors at the aforementioned Corporation. Respecting these facts the Prosecution requests that you recuse yourself from this case.

Screenshot 2025-10-25 195346.png


 
Novakerbal said:

Motion


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

Your honor, the Commonwealth requests that you recuse yourself from this case on the grounds of Relationship with Parties. Both your signature and the GlobalCenter Corporation Company Docket clearly identifies you as the CEO and President, of GlobalCenter. Furthermore, the Public Defender assigned to this case, Imza has a signature listing themself as the Chairman of the Board of Directors at GlobalCenter Corporation, as well as the aforementioned Company Docket listing Imza as the COO.

This represents a clear and blatant violation of Relationship with Parties, as both parties have a clear business relationship, with the honorable judge being in a position beholden to the whims of the Board of Directors at the aforementioned Corporation. Respecting these facts the Prosecution requests that you recuse yourself from this case.

View attachment 65278


Click to expand...
Granted. Altough my relationship with the PD assigned to this case is mearly professional and i do belive i can provide an unbiased verdict towards this case. I cannot in good faith refuse to recuse.

I hereby recuse myself from this case.
 
@Novakerbal @Imza I'm now the Mag on this case.

Mug's Court Rules:

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 are at risk at being held in Contempt of Court.
 
Your Honour,

Pursuant to Rule 4.9 (Witness Protocol), the Defence submits the following witness list:
Rookieblue14 - Assigned Investigator to this Prosecution.
12700k - Landlord of Landmark-03.

The Defence reserves its right to call upon additional witnesses before the end of discovery in accordance with Rule 4.9.
 
Your Honor,

The Commonwealth wishes to submit the following witness into Discovery at this time,

YourLocalDiabeto- Co-Proprietor of Adventure1
 
Imza said:

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY, ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

The Commonwealth claims:


1. Perjury
The Commonwealth is aware that the Defendant was not responsible for the construction of the illegal chestshop, as P-005 (evidence submitted by the Commonwealth), merely shows that the Defendant constructed a barrel, but not that they had constructed the chestshop. The Commonwealth has knowingly made a false statement under oath by claiming that this was a fact of the case.

2. Assumes Facts Not In Evidence
The Commonwealth states that the Defendant constructed an illegal chesthop; however, they have not provided any evidence to support this claim. Quite the contrary, P-005 shows that the Defendant did place down a barrel, but not that they had created a chesthop.


Therefore, the Defence respectfully requests that the Court strike out the section where appropriate.

Click to expand...


Sustained, the offending statements are struck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top