Lawsuit: Pending Commonwealth of Redmont v. MC20masarati [2025] FCR 57

[ToadKing]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION

Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

MC20masarati (aka "undatheradar")
Defendant

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

The Department of Justice has received evidence that the Defendant has engaged in the practice of law, without possessing the correct legal credentials as required by the Modern Legal Reform Act.

I. PARTIES
1. Commonwealth of Redmont
2. MC20masarati (aka "undatheradar")

II. FACTS
1. The Defendant first engaged in the practice of law without any valid legal qualifications in the case fluffywaafelz v. undatheradar [2025] FCR 54 (P-002), where as the defendant in that case, they represented themselves and filed two separate motions without possessing any legal credentials. (P-001)
2. On the 4th June 2025, at 01:28 (UTC+1), the Defendant obtained the rank of Solicitor.
3. Subsequently, on 4th June 2025, the Defendant filed their own case (P-003) in the Federal Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont, without the necessary legal rank of Barrister.
4. The Federal Court dismissed the Defendant's case sua sponte, with the presiding judge ruling that the Defendant "does not have the legal credentials defined in the Modern Legal Reform Act to file not only this case but any case in any court."
5. Under the Modern Legal Reform Act, only Barristers with appropriate specializations or Attorneys may file cases in Federal Court, unless under proper supervision as defined in Section 7.
6. The Defendant was representing themselves in both instances and was not under the supervision of a qualified Attorney.
7. The Defendant's actions constitute both practicing law without valid qualification and filing cases in courts beyond their qualification rank.

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:

1. Legal Fraud - In violation of Section 8(1) of the Modern Legal Reform Act, the Defendant engaged in the practice of law without any valid legal qualification by representing themselves and filing motions in the case fluffywaafelz v. undatheradar [2025] FCR 54 without possessing any legal credentials.
2. Legal Malpractice - In violation of Section 8(2) of the Modern Legal Reform Act, the Defendant practiced law and filed cases in Federal Court beyond their qualification rank, as they possessed only the rank of Solicitor at the time of filing.

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:

1. A fine of $7,500 for Legal Fraud, as this constitutes a first offense under Section 8(1)(c)(i) of the Modern Legal Reform Act.
2. A fine of $7,500 for Legal Malpractice, as this constitutes a first offense under Section 8(2)(c)(i) of the Modern Legal Reform Act.

EVIDENCE:
- Defendant's lack of qualifications

Spoiler: P-001

- FluffyWaafelz v. undatheradar case showing Defendant's first instance of unauthorized practice of law

Spoiler: P-002

Lawsuit: Adjourned Thread 'fluffywaafelz v. undatheradar [2025] FCR 54'

Jun 2, 2025

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


fluffywaafelz (represented by Mezimoří Law)
Plaintiff

v.

2.- ~undatheradar~ MC20masarati (a.k.a. "undatheradar")
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

The Plaintiff brings this action to recover funds unlawfully retained and misappropriated by the Defendant, undatheradar, in connection with a high-stakes poker game involving a $1,000,000 buy-in from each party...

• Patototongo1
• Replies: 35
• Forum: Case Archive

• 
• 

- Link to Defendant's case in FCR

Spoiler: P-003

Lawsuit: Dismissed Thread 'MC20masarati v. TheExchange [2025] FCR 55'

Jun 4, 2025

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

MC20masarati
Plaintiff

v.

The Exchange
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On June 3rd, 2025, the emergency asset freeze previously in effect was partially lifted, specifically unfreezing my holdings within The Exchange. At this time, only my bank balances and stock positions remain restricted, not liquid funds stored in a securities institution. Nonetheless, The Exchange blatantly ignored this and refuses to unfreeze my money.

I. PARTIES
1. MC20masarati...

• undatheradar
• Replies: 2
• Forum: Case Archive

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 5th day of June 2025

 

[ko531]

Writ of Summons

@undatheradar is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Commonwealth of Redmont v. Mc20masarati [2025] FCR 58

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.

 

[ToadKing]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

The Prosecution moves that the Court enter a default judgment in this case, for the following reasons:

1. The Defendant, MC20masarati (aka "undatheradar"), was duly served with a Writ of Summons, requiring their appearance before the Court.

2. The Defendant has failed to appear or respond within the 72-hour period prescribed in the Writ of Summons, nor have they submitted any filings or motions in their defence.

3. The Prosecution has submitted a full Complaint, including detailed factual allegations, charges, and supporting evidence, sufficient to support a finding of liability.

The Prosecution respectfully requests that the Court:

Enter a Default Judgment against the Defendant, MC20masarati (aka "undatheradar");
Impose the proposed sentence as stated in the original Complaint:

1. A fine of $7,500 for Legal Fraud under Section 8(1)(c)(i) of the Modern Legal Reform Act;
2. A fine of $7,500 for Legal Malpractice under Section 8(2)(c)(i) of the Modern Legal Reform Act.

 

[ko531]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

The Prosecution moves that the Court enter a default judgment in this case, for the following reasons:

1. The Defendant, MC20masarati (aka "undatheradar"), was duly served with a Writ of Summons, requiring their appearance before the Court.

2. The Defendant has failed to appear or respond within the 72-hour period prescribed in the Writ of Summons, nor have they submitted any filings or motions in their defence.

3. The Prosecution has submitted a full Complaint, including detailed factual allegations, charges, and supporting evidence, sufficient to support a finding of liability.

The Prosecution respectfully requests that the Court:

Enter a Default Judgment against the Defendant, MC20masarati (aka "undatheradar");
Impose the proposed sentence as stated in the original Complaint:

1. A fine of $7,500 for Legal Fraud under Section 8(1)(c)(i) of the Modern Legal Reform Act;
2. A fine of $7,500 for Legal Malpractice under Section 8(2)(c)(i) of the Modern Legal Reform Act.

Motion for Default Judgement Denied.

Its only been about 50 hours since the defendant was summonsed and not 72. They still have time to appear

 

[undatheradar]

Present

 

[ko531]

The defense has 48 hours to provide their answer to complaint.

 

[undatheradar]

Plea

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
PLEA

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

MC20masarati
Defendant

I. ENTRY OF PLEA
The defense pleas NOT GUILTY on all charges.


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 11th day of June 2025

 

[ko531]

We will now be entering discovery. Discovery will last 5 days starting now.

 

[undatheradar]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION

Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

MC20masarati (aka "undatheradar")
Defendant

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



I. PARTIES
1. Commonwealth of Redmont
2. MC20masarati (aka "undatheradar")

II. FACTS
1. The Defendant first engaged in the practice of law without any valid legal qualifications in the case fluffywaafelz v. undatheradar [2025] FCR 54 (P-002), where as the defendant in that case, they represented themselves and filed two separate motions without possessing any legal credentials. (P-001)
2. On the 4th June 2025, at 01:28 (UTC+1), the Defendant obtained the rank of Solicitor.
3. Subsequently, on 4th June 2025, the Defendant filed their own case (P-003) in the Federal Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont, without the necessary legal rank of Barrister.
4. The Federal Court dismissed the Defendant's case sua sponte, with the presiding judge ruling that the Defendant "does not have the legal credentials defined in the Modern Legal Reform Act to file not only this case but any case in any court."
5. Under the Modern Legal Reform Act, only Barristers with appropriate specializations or Attorneys may file cases in Federal Court, unless under proper supervision as defined in Section 7.
6. The Defendant was representing themselves in both instances and was not under the supervision of a qualified Attorney.
7. The Defendant's actions constitute both practicing law without valid qualification and filing cases in courts beyond their qualification rank.

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:

1. Legal Fraud - In violation of Section 8(1) of the Modern Legal Reform Act, the Defendant engaged in the practice of law without any valid legal qualification by representing themselves and filing motions in the case fluffywaafelz v. undatheradar [2025] FCR 54 without possessing any legal credentials.
2. Legal Malpractice - In violation of Section 8(2) of the Modern Legal Reform Act, the Defendant practiced law and filed cases in Federal Court beyond their qualification rank, as they possessed only the rank of Solicitor at the time of filing.

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:

1. A fine of $7,500 for Legal Fraud, as this constitutes a first offense under Section 8(1)(c)(i) of the Modern Legal Reform Act.
2. A fine of $7,500 for Legal Malpractice, as this constitutes a first offense under Section 8(2)(c)(i) of the Modern Legal Reform Act.

EVIDENCE:
- Defendant's lack of qualifications

Spoiler: P-001

- FluffyWaafelz v. undatheradar case showing Defendant's first instance of unauthorized practice of law

Spoiler: P-002

Lawsuit: Adjourned Thread 'fluffywaafelz v. undatheradar [2025] FCR 54'

Jun 2, 2025

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


fluffywaafelz (represented by Mezimoří Law)
Plaintiff

v.

2.- ~undatheradar~ MC20masarati (a.k.a. "undatheradar")
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

The Plaintiff brings this action to recover funds unlawfully retained and misappropriated by the Defendant, undatheradar, in connection with a high-stakes poker game involving a $1,000,000 buy-in from each party...

• Patototongo1
• Replies: 35
• Forum: Case Archive

• 
• 

- Link to Defendant's case in FCR

Spoiler: P-003

Lawsuit: Dismissed Thread 'MC20masarati v. TheExchange [2025] FCR 55'

Jun 4, 2025

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

MC20masarati
Plaintiff

v.

The Exchange
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On June 3rd, 2025, the emergency asset freeze previously in effect was partially lifted, specifically unfreezing my holdings within The Exchange. At this time, only my bank balances and stock positions remain restricted, not liquid funds stored in a securities institution. Nonetheless, The Exchange blatantly ignored this and refuses to unfreeze my money.

I. PARTIES
1. MC20masarati...

• undatheradar
• Replies: 2
• Forum: Case Archive

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 5th day of June 2025

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
INTERROGATORY

The defense reserves the right to ask the opposing party up to five questions that must be answered truthfully:
1. Isn't it true the judge in fluffywaafelz v. undatheradar ruled that I could defend myself when the question came up (up until the point he declared I needed to seek legal counsel)?
2. Isn't it true the case I filed was immediately dismissed?
3. Isn't it true I only filed one Federal Court case without being a barrister?
4. Isn't it true that MZ law, which the prosecutor works for, is the opposing counsel against me in numerous cases?
5. Why am I the only one being prosecuted for this supposed offense, which many others have done both historically and recently?

Objection

OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your honor, the prosecution edited their initial filing three days after they posted it and swore to its truthfulness, after summons were issued.

 

[gribble19]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
INTERROGATORY

The defense reserves the right to ask the opposing party up to five questions that must be answered truthfully:
1. Isn't it true the judge in fluffywaafelz v. undatheradar ruled that I could defend myself when the question came up (up until the point he declared I needed to seek legal counsel)?
2. Isn't it true the case I filed was immediately dismissed?
3. Isn't it true I only filed one Federal Court case without being a barrister?

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - LEADING QUESTION
All 3 of these questions are leading questions, clearly suggesting a desired answer and including information that the Defendant seeks to confirm.

4. Isn't it true that MZ law, which the prosecutor works for, is the opposing counsel against me in numerous cases?

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE
This question is not relevant to the case.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - INFLAMMATORY
This question is intended to provoke prejudice rather than seek factual information.

5. Why am I the only one being prosecuted for this supposed offense, which many others have done both historically and recently?

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE
This question assumes both that Defendant is the only one being prosecuted for this supposed offense, as well as that this offense has been committed by many others both historically and recently. Neither of these assumptions are facts in evidence or even supported by any evidence.

 

[undatheradar]

Objection​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - LEADING QUESTION
All 3 of these questions are leading questions, clearly suggesting a desired answer and including information that the Defendant seeks to confirm.

Your honor, leading questions are permitted against opposing parties / cross examinations as affirmed in several cases and in basically every legal jurisdiction in real life.

Objection​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE
This question is not relevant to the case.
.link { color: #000000; font-weight: bold;}

Objection​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - INFLAMMATORY
This question is intended to provoke prejudice rather than seek factual information.

Your honor, this question goes to show the political motivations behind this prosecution, demonstrating that I am being singled out for private interests. This is a malicious prosecution and this question goes to establish that. The circumstances of being prosecuted are important considering I am the only person in Redmont history being prosecuted for this supposed offense which many others have done before me.

Objection​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE
This question assumes both that Defendant is the only one being prosecuted for this supposed offense, as well as that this offense has been committed by many others both historically and recently. Neither of these assumptions are facts in evidence or even supported by any evidence.

Cases are matters of public record. They don't need to be entered into evidence, that is how many people cite cases all the time in their own cases. This is a baseless objection because the prosecution simply doesn't want to admit that I am being singled out for ulterior reasons.

 

[undatheradar]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


MC20masarati
Counterplaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Counterdefendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

I am the target of a malicious prosecution, brought not in the interest of justice but to serve the private and corporate interests of the Defendant and their associates. I have been unfairly singled out and subjected to legal harassment through this action. As a result, I seek appropriate remedy for the reputational and emotional harm this case has caused, as well as compensation for the cost of defending myself against it.

I. PARTIES
1. MC20masarati
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont
3. T04DS74

II. FACTS
1. The Commonwealth filed a prosecution against me in this case.
2. The prosecutor was T04DS74, who also works for MZ law.
3. MZ law is the opposing counsel in several cases in which I am a party, including a case against the Exchange and a former case against fluffywaafelz.
4. In those cases, my ability to represent myself was at issue and I ended up obtaining a legal license to solve it.
5. This case was filed very shortly after I obtained legal licensure and announced my intentions to continue representing myself.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Under the Legal Damages Act, I am entitled to the greater of 30% of the total value of the case or $6,000 in legal fees. Given the amount at stake in this matter, I respectfully assert my right to recover fees in accordance with that statute.
2. T04DS74 is exploiting his position as a prosecutor in an attempt to disbar me—not due to any genuine violation of law, but to strategically remove me from my own legal team in unrelated matters where his firm serves as opposing counsel. This is a flagrant abuse of power. I am the only individual to date who has been prosecuted for this alleged violation, despite the fact that numerous unlicensed individuals have filed cases and represented themselves in the past without facing sanctions. This selective enforcement strongly suggests retaliatory intent. The result has been considerable personal and professional harm: I am forced to divert time and energy away from my ongoing cases in order to defend myself against an aggressive and unjustified prosecution. This conduct undermines the integrity of the judicial process and poses a serious threat to the principle of equal protection under the law.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $6,000 in legal fees for the prosecution against me
2. $50,000 in punitive damages for the outrageous and malicious conduct undertaken by the prosecutor. The decision to bring this case appears motivated not by the pursuit of justice, but by a desire to serve private interests—specifically, to disqualify me from participating in other legal matters where the prosecutor's firm stands to benefit. This abuse of prosecutorial authority represents a serious breach of ethical and judicial norms and warrants financial punishment to deter similar misconduct in the future.
3. $50,000 in loss of enjoyment in Redmont damages, stemming from the undue energy, time, and emotional strain required to defend against this baseless prosecution. The burden has extended beyond the courtroom—I am also being forced to defend my reputation within the community. As someone who is beginning to genuinely enjoy legal practice on this server, this malicious targeting has unfairly chilled that enjoyment and cast a shadow over my professional participation. These damages reflect the personal and reputational toll exacted by the prosecution’s conduct.
4. $30,000 in legal fees, which is 30% of the $100,000 being requested in this countersuit, or $6,000 at minimum.



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 June 2025