Lawsuit: Dismissed Commonwealth of Redmont v. Gregg [2026] FCR 50

Status
Not open for further replies.
AmityBlamity

AmityBlamity

Moderator
Moderator
Aventura Resident
Justice Department
5th Anniversary 6th Anniversary Change Maker Popular in the Polls
AmityBlamity
AmityBlamity
State Prosecutor
Joined
Jan 4, 2025
Messages
417

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION


Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Gregg
Defendant

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

On or about the 25th of March, our democracy suffered a crippling blow. v__d's terrorist forces, under the command of lukeyyyMC_, stormed the Capitol building. In the face of these treasonous attackers, Gregg decided to ignore his ONLY DUTY (that being to defend the Capitol), and instead allowed the rioters to seize control of the building. He is a disgrace, and must face punishment for his treasonous actions.

I. PARTIES
1. Commonwealth of Redmont (Prosecution, represented by Amity Justice)
2. Gregg (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. On or about the 25th of March, terrorists attacked the capitol building.
2. Gregg watched the terrorists attack the building, and did nothing to stop them.
3. Gregg allowed Redmont to briefly fall to these terrorists, and made no efforts to call for help or attempt to stop their actions in any way.
4. Through his inaction, multiple people were gunned down by terrorists. Innocents that Gregg was sworn to protect.

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. One count of Treason - We believe that Gregg betrayed the Constitution and the very people he swore to defend. Treason is an appropriate punishment.

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. On the one count of Treason, the maximum charge of 250 Penalty Units ($25,000), and 2 months disqualification from office.
2. We also ask that the court fire Gregg from his position, and appoint a superior candidate in his place.

P-001: Footage of Capitol being stormed

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.

Signed,
Amity Justice

DATED: This 11th day of June, 2026.

 

Motion



MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

We request that this Court move to suspend Gregg from his position for the duration of this court case. Due to Gregg's ineptitude and clear disdain for the Commonwealth, it is clear he can no longer be trusted.

 
Your honor, I know asking prior to summons is uncommon, however given the extreme nature of the Emergency Injunction and hostile attitude of the prosecution, we ask to be permitted to respond to the Motion for Emergency Injunction before it is ruled upon.

1781209603664.png
 
I will be presiding officer in this matter.

Court Order


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - STANDING

The Court is concerned that the case before us today lacks standing. Particularly, rule 2.1(1) seems unfulfilled (suffered some injury caused by a clear second party).

The "Defendant" in this case appears to be an npc, mere lines of code with no will or autonomy and living only within the server. The Court, on first view, is unsure how the alleged defendant is any more than even a naturally-spawning mob. The Commonwealth is ordered to show how this case is at best a misguided attempt at prosecution, and at worst a frivolous case to be dismissed sua sponte with prejudice like that in Plura72 v. Air [2025] DCR 31.

 
Smallfries said:
I will be presiding officer in this matter.

Court Order


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - STANDING

The Court is concerned that the case before us today lacks standing. Particularly, rule 2.1(1) seems unfulfilled (suffered some injury caused by a clear second party).

The "Defendant" in this case appears to be an npc, mere lines of code with no will or autonomy and living only within the server. The Court, on first view, is unsure how the alleged defendant is any more than even a naturally-spawning mob. The Commonwealth is ordered to show how this case is at best a misguided attempt at prosecution, and at worst a frivolous case to be dismissed sua sponte with prejudice like that in Plura72 v. Air [2025] DCR 31.

Click to expand...
Your Honour,

The Courts of Redmont have previously allowed for suits to be filed against NPCs. The most infamous example of course being Dartanboy v. Robert [2024] DCR 9, where defendant's counsel successfully sought civil damages for robbery. The Federal Court has also allowed this exact case to be heard previously (Commonwealth of Redmont v. Gregg [2025] FCR 64), though it was dismissed at the request of the prosecution before it could be completed.

We also have the writings of the brilliant former judge and current president-elect, Multi, whose foundational writing in Superwoops v. Trentrick_Lamar [2026] DCR 18 notes that:

The Federal Court and District Court have previously granted a non-player character ability to defend themself in Court (see: Commonwealth of Redmont v. Gregg [2025] FCR 64; Dartanboy v. Robert [2024] DCR 9). One might think that this constitutes an implicit acknowledgement of certain unenumerated rights of non-player characters, including a right to participate in Court proceedings involving them.
Click to expand...

And:

Through the thread of history, villagers have not been granted the same level of rights as ordinary NPCs, such as representing themselves in Court.
Click to expand...

Note that, even if this Court believes NPCs are immune to lawsuits, Gregg is specifically singled out in the verdict:

Are Villagers merely a sort of NPC with rights to representation in the same way as Gregg may be?
Click to expand...

Gregg is afforded the same rights as all citizens of Redmont. Likewise, he is subject to the same laws as the citizens of Redmont. Were this Court to dismiss this case solely because Gregg is supposedly "mere lines of code" and "[lives] only within the server", no court case would ever be permitted. We are all digital avatars, built by code, attempting to make our mark on this glorious nation.

The beloved former Chief Justice Nacho said as such in Dartanboy v. Robert [2024] DCR 9: "Just as Pinocchio said those many years ago. He wishes to be a real boy. Character, player or entity they appeared before the court and have earned the ability to be heard."

Furthermore Your Honour, to borrow and reframe a point made by the Defendant's counsel in the aforementioned case, while Gregg is an NPC that doesn't mean he doesn't do anything outside his programming. He clearly reached out to Dartanboy for representation. When this case was first filed, Gregg also made his himself known to the court. We also learned that Gregg had a wife, his "beloved" Greggette. Clearly this NPC is capable of communicating with us and falling in love, and thus is fit for prosecution.
 

Verdict


DISMISSAL - SUA SPONTE

I dismiss this case sua sponte with prejudice for want of standing. Rule 2.1(1) of the court rules and procedures asks for a clear second party that causes an injury. Here, the Commonwealth claims that "Gregg," an npc, is a second party. The Court requested the Commonwealth show cause to prove this case had standing.

In their reply, the Commonwealth cites three less-than-perfect pieces of precedent: Dartanboy v. Robert [2024] DCR 9, Commonwealth of Redmont v. Gregg [2025] FCR 64, and Superwoops v. Trentrick_Lamar [2026] DCR 18. In the first, a citizen sued an NPC after, ostensibly, a member of staff commandeered the "NPC" and assaulted the citizen. The verdict, holding that "Robert . . . said it himself, he didn't do it. The court will just have to take it as that. However, for this single instance, the staff team can give Dartanboy his money back for playing along with a hilarious court case, even though Bindi had a horrible accident midway through. I will make the staff team provide the $100 back in compensation." Dartanboy v. Robert [2024] DCR 9. Here, it seems facially obvious that the case was a mere joke, and staff played something of a prank on a player by commandeering an NPC. The remedy was staff paying money back. The NPC did not act of his own volition. The court there played along with a joke.

In the second case, the facts and parties were essentially the same as they are here. Gregg made an appearance, as well as a "Greggette." However, the case did not fully go through trial, and any legal or factual determinations from that case are entirely without backing or precedential value.

Finally, in Superwoops, the court there in voluminous detail spoke on the "rights of villagers." Without wading too deep into those waters, it is clear that the verdict makes logical leaps and oversteps to reach its conclusion cited by the Commonwealth here. As noted above, the sole legal proposition the court there cited was Commonwealth v. Gregg, which was not fully litigated. Though true that the federal court did allow the case to continue procedurally, this is, as the court says in Superwoops, merely an "implicit" nod towards allowing NPC representation. That case further wisely hedges its bets, saying: "Are villagers merely a sort of NPC with rights to representation in the same way that Gregg may be?" Superwoops v. Trentrick_Lamar (empahsis added).

That case, in discussing "villager rights," later gives credence to statutory history of protections levied by Congress to the villager's benefits. No such protection exists for non-mob NPCs, like Gregg.

None of the cited authorities are particularly persuasive to this court, and none are at all binding either. Two are from a lower court, and one is an incomplete horizontal authority, which is not binding on us today. This Court finds it more than obvious that Gregg has no rights to representation, is not a human being, and treating him as such would serve only to inflate the docket of the court with little value or benefit to anybody. Any reasonable person could assume by any actions by an NPC to be a commandeering by a member of staff, and any inaction exist as a nature of that NPC's NPC-ness. Just as you cannot sue a rock for getting into your shoe, you cannot sue an NPC for standing around and doing what it was programmed to do.

Thus, this case is dismissed sua sponte with prejudice. I do not levy a frivolous case charge (and perhaps a conduct strike) to the Commonwealth's litigator solely because the above "precedent" lends somewhat to the unfortunate legal fiction that NPCs do indeed have rights, which I hope is squarely demolished today. Further, the Commonwealth has a history of filing somewhat odd cases to test legal theories and attempt to get dispositive rulings on the matter. See Commonwealth of Redmont v. Sofia2750 [2025] SCR 21 (Smallfries4, J., dissenting) ("[T]he Commonwealth noted that though they did not include either of those crucial punishments in their initial complaint, forum was proper because 'the court [in another case] stated that the sentencing recommendation given by the [C]ommonwealth need not be followed by a presiding Judicial officer [sic].' I saw this statement as a trap, and an attempt to push the Supreme Court to make a decision as to an ambiguous constitutional question."). If nothing else, look to Dartanboy. There, the remedy came from staff, not Robert. The court was entirely lackadaisical as to its treatment of the alleged offense. The case was clearly a joke, and the actions of the "NPC" may have even been authorized or personally performed by the presiding judge in that case, who was a member of staff.

It is my hope that this dismissal firmly and forever puts to bed the notion that an NPC has any rights to representation. They are staff-implemented automatons, nothing more. Until Congress creates some rights for them or staff declares otherwise, they are little more than objects. So ordered.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top