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
129

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

 
I'll give the Commonwealth some time to respond to these. The Supreme Court issues a modified Merry Christmas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top