Lawsuit: In Session Commonwealth of Redmont v. ImzaKRD [2025] SCR 20

S

Superwoops

Citizen
Public Defender
Justice Department
Oakridge Resident
5th Anniversary Change Maker
Superwoops
Superwoops
Public Defender
Joined
Jan 3, 2025
Messages
159

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION

Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

ImzaKRD
Defendant

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

PROSECUTING AUTHORITY REPORT
vvirtue_ sent ImzaKRD, an Aventura Councillor, $10,000 in exchange for a street to be named after them. ImzaKRD, as an elected official holding public office, was influenced, profiting personally from this event.

I. PARTIES

  1. Commonwealth of Redmont (Prosecution)​
  2. ImzaKRD/RealImza (Defendant)​
II. FACTS
  1. On December 2nd, 2025, vvirtue_ sent the following in-game message in general: "imza, what will it take to get a vvirtue lane in aventura" (P-001)​
  2. Moments later, ImzaKRD said "10K payable to the Council of Aventura" followed by "jkjk" (P-001)​
  3. The Defendant then said "talk to Katto and Anime ig" to which vvirtue_ answered "damn, I was about to be like 'deal' too" (P-001)​
  4. Upon realising vvirtue_'s intent to make the payment, the Defendant replied with "pay me 10K and I'll make sure you get a lane" (P-001).​
  5. vvirtue_ then made a payment of $10,000 to the Defendant. (P-001)​
  6. ImzaKRD asked vvirtue_ "where do you want the lane at?" (P-001)​
  7. vvirtue_ stated "anywhere in aventura >: ) I'm not picky" to which the Defendant replied with "done!". (P-001)​
  8. The street sign name was changed by the Defendant to reflect vvirtue_'s name.​
  9. At the time, the Defendant was an elected official holding public office as a Councillor of Aventura.​
  10. The District Court has established that vvirtue_'s payment was an act of Bribery beyond reasonable doubt in the following case: Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. vvirtue_ [2025] DCR 102​
  11. The Defendant has since admitted to committing the crime of Bribery by responding to the following case: Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. vvirtue_ [2025] DCR 102, affirming the facts by saying "this is true". (P-002)​
II. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charge against the Defendant:​
  1. One count of Bribery under CCA §II(5), committed when a person "offers, gives, solicits, or receives an item or service of value to influence an individual holding public office or serving in a legal capacity." In this case, the Defendant solicited, then accepted, a sum of $10,000 in exchange for him using his power within the Aventura Council to name a street after vvirtue_. The Councillor was influenced, as shown by his response, indicating an agreement to deliver the benefit had been formed.​
  2. One count of Corruption under CCA §II(1), committed when a person "uses a government position to gain an unfair advantage for oneself or another, inconsistent with official duty." The Defendant's acceptance of payment deliverable to his own personal account makes his actions attributable to Corruption, as the advantage in question corresponds to the Defendant's own personal interest: his monetary gain. He leveraged his authority, apparent or factual, of changing the sign name within this quid pro quo, also providing an advantage (preferential naming rights) to a third party; in this case, vvirtue_. These actions are inconsistent with a Councillor's official duty and therefore constitute the crime of Corruption following the Supreme Court's corruption test.​
IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:​
  1. 100 Penalty Units, 10 minutes of imprisonment, and 2 months disqualification from office for one count of Bribery.​
  2. 100 Penalty Units for one count of Corruption. This recommendation is deliberately set below the statutory maximum for this offence (40% of maximum allowed fines of 250 Penalty Units, and no disqualification from office as opposed to a maximum of 2 months), reflecting prosecutorial restraint and a tempered disposition, sufficient to revindicate the integrity of public office and to deter similar conduct in the future.​
V. EVIDENCE
https://imgur.com/a/y2oSIC7
P-002 2.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 15th day of December 2025.
​


​
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Court Order


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order - Sua Sponte Dismissal of Fact 10 & 11


The Constitution, specifically R. Const 32 § (7) states that "[r]ights cannot be withheld on the basis of criminality, rights are inalienable." This is a criminal prosecution, this Court can't be prejudiced against the Defendant simply because another party to the action pled guilty in another Court or before another Judicial Officer. This principle, res inter alios acta, is the notion that the acts or admissions of one person may not be used against another; guilt by association is fundamentally unconstitutional and thus may not be explicitly used as a fact.

The Commonwealth may choose to use the witness in that case, if it chooses, but may not attempt to purport guilty prior to this Court's adjudication.

So ordered,
Judge Mug

 

Writ of Summons

@Imza , is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Commonwealth of Redmont v. ImzaKRD [2025] FCR 133

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 may be held in Contempt of Court.


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 TO RECONSIDER

Muggy21 said:

Court Order


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order - Sua Sponte Dismissal of Fact 10 & 11


The Constitution, specifically R. Const 32 § (7) states that "[r]ights cannot be withheld on the basis of criminality, rights are inalienable." This is a criminal prosecution, this Court can't be prejudiced against the Defendant simply because another party to the action pled guilty in another Court or before another Judicial Officer. This principle, res inter alios acta, is the notion that the acts or admissions of one person may not be used against another; guilt by association is fundamentally unconstitutional and thus may not be explicitly used as a fact.

The Commonwealth may choose to use the witness in that case, if it chooses, but may not attempt to purport guilty prior to this Court's adjudication.

So ordered,
Judge Mug

Click to expand...
Your honour,
The Prosecution was not trying to imply that, because vvirtue_ was found guilty, the Defendant in this case must be too. The fact of the matter is, the District Court's verdict established that the act, referring to the transfer of funds from vvirtue_'s side only, constitutes a bribe being offered to the Defendant. The Defendant then received those funds. It is a factual base, and its establishment is important to discuss this case, serving as strong evidence not for the Court to prematurely assume that the Defendant is guilty, but rather to determine the facts surrounding the transfer of funds.
Furthermore, Fact 11 refers to valuable evidence. Upon a statement that said "Imza... took bribes???" (referencing the DCR case) the Defendant responded with "This is true". This is an admission of guilt under the Act of Congress - I Admit Act. Guilt by association does not apply here, as vvirtue_'s guilty verdict is not in question but rather the Defendant's own admission of guilt.​

 
Superwoops said:

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your honour,

The Prosecution was not trying to imply that, because vvirtue_ was found guilty, the Defendant in this case must be too. The fact of the matter is, the District Court's verdict established that the act, referring to the transfer of funds from vvirtue_'s side only, constitutes a bribe being offered to the Defendant. The Defendant then received those funds. It is a factual base, and its establishment is important to discuss this case, serving as strong evidence not for the Court to prematurely assume that the Defendant is guilty, but rather to determine the facts surrounding the transfer of funds.
Furthermore, Fact 11 refers to valuable evidence. Upon a statement that said "Imza... took bribes???" (referencing the DCR case) the Defendant responded with "This is true". This is an admission of guilt under the Act of Congress - I Admit Act. Guilt by association does not apply here, as vvirtue_'s guilty verdict is not in question but rather the Defendant's own admission of guilt.​

Click to expand...


Court Order


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order - Motion to Reconsider P#4 - Sua Sponte Fact Dismissal

DENIED

The District Court's finding establishing the fact that the "act" of bribery occurred is evidence of the allegation, not a fact. Fact #10 was dismissed because if the "act" of bribery is a settled fact, then the defendant in this case would be prejudiced without having the opportunity to be heard in defense of this alleged fact. Considering I must assume innocence rather than guilt in this proceeding, the Court can't consider the payment made to Defendant to be a bribe as settled fact.

Fact #11 was dismissed because this is evidence, not a fact. An admission isn't a fact. The act of admission is, but the content therein is not. Thus the Court strikes this as well. No part of my original order is meant to limit your argument, I just wont treat it as settled fact.

So ordered,
Judge Mug


 
Your honour,

I am here to represent Imza in this matter.

Motion


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

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and refiled in the SCR.

Constitution - Part. II Art. 20.1.a - The Supreme Court of Redmont has original jurisdiction over matters of "Removing and/or banning individuals from public office."

As the Commonwealth is requesting a 2 month ban from office for the charge of Bribery, this falls in line with the SCR's jurisdiction and should be heard there.


1765888941016.png
 
asexualdinosaur said:
Your honour,

I am here to represent Imza in this matter.

Motion


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

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and refiled in the SCR.

Constitution - Part. II Art. 20.1.a - The Supreme Court of Redmont has original jurisdiction over matters of "Removing and/or banning individuals from public office."

As the Commonwealth is requesting a 2 month ban from office for the charge of Bribery, this falls in line with the SCR's jurisdiction and should be heard there.


View attachment 69383
Click to expand...


DENIED. The Federal Court removes this case to the Supreme Court.
 
Your honour,

The Prosecution respectfully requests this Court to revise the previous ruling striking facts 10 and 11.
In Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. zLost [2023] SCR 14, the Court removed a case to the Supreme Court for the same reason as this case. The SCR also mentioned that "All previous proceedings remain in effect seeing as no consequential decisions have been made so far." In the aforementioned case, the Judge had not ruled on any motions or objections before the case was moved to the SCR. This is why the Justice stated no consequential decisions had been made. The Court's phrasing implies that any consequential decisions made may be subject to revision, and current proceedings may be impacted as a result.
This case differs from Zlost as the Judge did order a dismissal, and ruled on a motion to reconsider, therefore consequential decisions have been made.

We furthermore argue that all facts mentioned in our filing can be opposed and discussed by opposing counsel, however should not be immediately dismissed by the Court since both are established facts supported by evidence.​
 

Plea

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

ImzaKRD
Defendant

I. ENTRY OF PLEA
1. To the charge of Bribery, we plead Not Guilty.
2. To the charge of Corruption, we plead 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 18th day of December 2025

 
This case has been remanded to the SCR and styled Commonwealth of Redmont v. ImzaKRD [2025] SCR 20. In a 3-0 vote, the SCR has appointed Associate Justice Smallfries4 as presiding officer in this case during trial proceedings, empowered to rule in the interest of efficiency. Parties may object to rulings made by the presiding officer through a motion to reconsider, which will then be ruled on by the Supreme Court as a bench.


Apologies for the wait. As it currently stands, I recognize the plea of not guilty on all counts. We're gonna go ahead and move to discovery now, for five days from the moment of this post being filed.

As to the outstanding filing made by the Commonwealth, I'm going to be honest and say I'm a bit unclear as to what is being asked. Given that, as far as I am aware, the issue the Commonwealth has is not one that is relevant to discovery (that is, not a question that will be harmed if I do not give an answer during discovery), I'm going to ask the Commonwealth to please follow-up with a clarification, or a proper motion or objection to help clarify what they are seeking at this moment.
 
Thank you, your honour.
We would like the Court to disregard the revision request filed here:
Superwoops said:
Your honour,

The Prosecution respectfully requests this Court to revise the previous ruling striking facts 10 and 11.
In Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. zLost [2023] SCR 14, the Court removed a case to the Supreme Court for the same reason as this case. The SCR also mentioned that "All previous proceedings remain in effect seeing as no consequential decisions have been made so far." In the aforementioned case, the Judge had not ruled on any motions or objections before the case was moved to the SCR. This is why the Justice stated no consequential decisions had been made. The Court's phrasing implies that any consequential decisions made may be subject to revision, and current proceedings may be impacted as a result.
This case differs from Zlost as the Judge did order a dismissal, and ruled on a motion to reconsider, therefore consequential decisions have been made.

We furthermore argue that all facts mentioned in our filing can be opposed and discussed by opposing counsel, however should not be immediately dismissed by the Court since both are established facts supported by evidence.​
Click to expand...
 

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE

In regards to P-001

The courts have previously not accepted 'editable text logs' on their own without collaborating evidence, of which has not been provided in this case so far.

In the case of royalsnakee v. iikermitii [2024 DCR 7] - 'An editable text log on its own is insufficient evidence. If you have collaborating evidence to prove the statements, you can submit it in a motion to reconsider.'

This was also upheld in a verdict in which the evidence provided was not considered in MrCheesguy v. Forevershadow1 [2025 DCR 15] - 'P-001 - P-006 are chat logs that are highly editable. For this reason, evidence like this have been struck in the past (royalsnakee v. iikermitii [2024] DCR 7)'


We ask that this evidence be struck or that the Commonwealth is compelled to produce collaborating evidence of the logs they wish to introduce.

 

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

We compel the DoJ to produce evidence of the following:

1. The location of the alleged modified sign
2. The alleged modified sign
3. List of people who had access to modify the sign
4. The alleged transfer of funds

 

Response


RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

asexualdinosaur said:

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE

In regards to P-001

The courts have previously not accepted 'editable text logs' on their own without collaborating evidence, of which has not been provided in this case so far.

In the case of royalsnakee v. iikermitii [2024 DCR 7] - 'An editable text log on its own is insufficient evidence. If you have collaborating evidence to prove the statements, you can submit it in a motion to reconsider.'

This was also upheld in a verdict in which the evidence provided was not considered in MrCheesguy v. Forevershadow1 [2025 DCR 15] - 'P-001 - P-006 are chat logs that are highly editable. For this reason, evidence like this have been struck in the past (royalsnakee v. iikermitii [2024] DCR 7)'


We ask that this evidence be struck or that the Commonwealth is compelled to produce collaborating evidence of the logs they wish to introduce.

Click to expand...
The Commonwealth will be filing supplementary evidence shortly. We would like to point out, however, that the same piece of evidence was previously found permissible in the District Court of Redmont.

 
SUBMISSION OF EVIDENCE:
p-003.png
p-004.png
p-005.png
 
WITNESS LIST:
  1. vvirtue_
  2. AnimeInc
 

Motion


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY

Your honour, the Commonwealth respectfully requests a 24-hour extension of discovery to gather necessary and valuable pieces of evidence.

 
Superwoops said:

Motion


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY

Your honour, the Commonwealth respectfully requests a 24-hour extension of discovery to gather necessary and valuable pieces of evidence.

Click to expand...
Granted. Discovery is extended for a further twenty-four hours from the previous deadline.
 
asexualdinosaur said:

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE

In regards to P-001

The courts have previously not accepted 'editable text logs' on their own without collaborating evidence, of which has not been provided in this case so far.

In the case of royalsnakee v. iikermitii [2024 DCR 7] - 'An editable text log on its own is insufficient evidence. If you have collaborating evidence to prove the statements, you can submit it in a motion to reconsider.'

This was also upheld in a verdict in which the evidence provided was not considered in MrCheesguy v. Forevershadow1 [2025 DCR 15] - 'P-001 - P-006 are chat logs that are highly editable. For this reason, evidence like this have been struck in the past (royalsnakee v. iikermitii [2024] DCR 7)'


We ask that this evidence be struck or that the Commonwealth is compelled to produce collaborating evidence of the logs they wish to introduce.

Click to expand...
Superwoops said:

Motion


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY

Your honour, the Commonwealth respectfully requests a 24-hour extension of discovery to gather necessary and valuable pieces of evidence.

Click to expand...
I am assuming the evidence the Commonwealth has asked for an extension to gather is the evidence corroborating the chatlogs in P-001. I will wait until those are produced—or discovery elapses—to make a ruling on this objection.
 
SUBMISSION OF EVIDENCE:


2025-12-02-1 (1).log

drive.google.com drive.google.com
These are unedited logs submitted directly by vvirtue_, a witness for this case who will testify following opening statements.
 
asexualdinosaur said:

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE

In regards to P-001

The courts have previously not accepted 'editable text logs' on their own without collaborating evidence, of which has not been provided in this case so far.

In the case of royalsnakee v. iikermitii [2024 DCR 7] - 'An editable text log on its own is insufficient evidence. If you have collaborating evidence to prove the statements, you can submit it in a motion to reconsider.'

This was also upheld in a verdict in which the evidence provided was not considered in MrCheesguy v. Forevershadow1 [2025 DCR 15] - 'P-001 - P-006 are chat logs that are highly editable. For this reason, evidence like this have been struck in the past (royalsnakee v. iikermitii [2024] DCR 7)'


We ask that this evidence be struck or that the Commonwealth is compelled to produce collaborating evidence of the logs they wish to introduce.

Click to expand...
This is granted sustained. Raw text files are not admissible as evidence unless corroborated by a secondary source.


We will commence the trial. The Commonwealth (@Superwoops) shall have seventy-two hours to present their opening statement.
 
Last edited:

Motion


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Smallfries said:
This is granted sustained. Raw text files are not admissible as evidence unless corroborated by a secondary source.


We will commence the trial. The Commonwealth (@Superwoops) shall have seventy-two hours to present their opening statement.
Click to expand...

Your honour,

The Prosecution respectfully moves for a reconsideration on the ruling that struck exhibit P-001 from the record.

On admissibility

Editability is not exclusive to chat logs. Unfortunately, many pieces of evidence can be forged and manipulated. This does not render them inadmissible because the opposing party must shed some doubt upon the veracity of the evidence.
In fact, in Lawsuit: Dismissed - jsrkiwi v Trentrick_Lamar [2025] DCR 90, the District Court ordered a party to preserve these same types of logs, which were later entered into evidence. The Prosecution would not ask this Court to abide by the lower Court's ruling, but rather ponder if the Defense's unsubstantiated claims warrant the exclusion of this evidence which has also proven valuable and admissible in Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. vvirtue_ [2025] DCR 102, having been used to establish a factual basis surrounding the same circumstances as this case and to convict another party for offering a bribe to the Defendant.
In this case, we have a witness who has submitted evidence voluntarily. They are available for cross-examination from the Defense. There really aren't any more optimal conditions than these. If the witness testimony were to shed any doubt on the evidence, an objection might be warranted then, but not now. In short, the evidence in P-001 and P-006 are not unsupported; they have a witness who can swear as to the validity of the evidence.​

Regarding supporting evidence

If the aforementioned evidence is not sufficient, the Prosecution would like to file the following supporting evidence (P-007). Noting that Discovery has elapsed, we do ask for this to be accepted, as the original objection and response were still filed in Discovery. This piece of evidence is crucial, as the precedent cited by the Defense (Lawsuit: Adjourned - royalsnakee v. IIKermitII [2024] DCR 7) would have allowed a video showing these facts as supporting evidence. In then-Magistrate Matthew100x's words: "I unfortunately did not see the new evidence because of the jump to the new page. This would have been legitimate cross-evidence verifying". Since the Prosecution was not aware this objection would have been sustained outside of Discovery, we humbly ask for this evidence to be accepted.​


Regarding falsification of evidence

It has been brought to the Prosecution's attention that attempts to tamper with or falsify evidence falls under Staff purview as a Staff-punishable offense. In the event someone has any suspicion that evidence has been tampered with, they would report that in a Staff ticket, not resort to the Courts. As such, the Department of Justice verified with Server Staff, who were able to authenticate that all messages pertaining to the transaction shown in logs were in fact real. The Prosecution is happy to show evidence of this interaction if needed by the Court.

For all of the above stated reasons, we respectfully ask the Court to reconsider the order striking P-001 from the record.​

 
The Prosecution would also like to respectfully ask for a 30-hour extension, as the outcome of the above motion's ruling greatly affects the content of our Opening Statement.
Additionally, it will be New Year's Eve tomorrow.
 
Superwoops said:
The Prosecution would also like to respectfully ask for a 30-hour extension, as the outcome of the above motion's ruling greatly affects the content of our Opening Statement.
Additionally, it will be New Year's Eve tomorrow.
Click to expand...
I will grant this. The above motion will be ruled on by the Supreme Court as a bench.
 
Your honour, due to the fact that the ruling on the proposed Motion to Reconsider will materially affect the arguments and framing proposed in the Commonwealth's opening statement, we ask for an extension of the deadline to file opening statements. Specifically, the Commonwealth requests that the deadline be extended until the Court has issued its ruling, plus an additional twenty-four hours thereafter to adjust to said ruling.
 
Superwoops said:
Your honour, due to the fact that the ruling on the proposed Motion to Reconsider will materially affect the arguments and framing proposed in the Commonwealth's opening statement, we ask for an extension of the deadline to file opening statements. Specifically, the Commonwealth requests that the deadline be extended until the Court has issued its ruling, plus an additional twenty-four hours thereafter to adjust to said ruling.
Click to expand...
This is granted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top