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

[Superwoops]

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

Spoiler: P-001

https://imgur.com/a/y2oSIC7

Spoiler: P-002

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.
​

​

 

[Muggy21]

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

 

[Muggy21]

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.

 

[Superwoops]

Motion

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

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

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.​

 

[Muggy21]

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.​

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

 

[asexualdinosaur]

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.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[Muggy21]

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.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

View attachment 69383

DENIED. The Federal Court removes this case to the Supreme Court.