Lawsuit: Pending Commonwealth of Redmont v. Sofia2750 [2026] SCR 2

_budo

_budo

Citizen
Justice Department
Health Department
_budo
_budo
State Prosecutor
Joined
Dec 29, 2025
Messages
10

Case Filing


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION


Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Sofia2750
Defendant

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

PROSECUTING AUTHORITY REPORT

Sofia2750 was found distributing named flowers advertising her and Ameslap's Mayoral ticket within 50 blocks of the Town Hall.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES
1. Commonwealth of Redmont
2. Sofia2750

II. FACTS
1. In response to a report received by the Department of Justice, Lead investigator Rookieblue14 filed a search warrant for drop logs of named flowers advertising Sofia2750 and Ameslap's mayoral ticket. (P-001)
2. Sofia2570 distributed 10 such flowers within 50 blocks of the Town Hall. (P-002, P-003, P-004, P-005, P-006, P-007)
3. According to the restrictions set out in §11(2) of the Electoral Act, campaign-related advertising including physical propaganda is prohibited within 50 blocks of a building where a polling place is located.

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. One count of Harassment of a Polling Place, per Part II, Section 8 of the Criminal Code Act. This offence is committed when a person
"Engages in any conduct inside a building containing a polling place or within 50 blocks of a building where a polling place is located that:
(i) interferes with the freedom of voters to vote; or
(ii) disrupts the administration of the polling place; or
(iii) violates the restrictions set out in §11(2) of the Electoral Act".
According to §11(2) of the Electoral Act, the restrictions set are:
"campaign-related advertising (Includes, but is not limited to, physical campaign propaganda and person-to-person campaigning) is prohibited within:
(a) within 50 blocks of a building where a polling place is located; or
(b) inside a building containing a polling place."
The Defendant had distributed physical campaigning material in the form of named flowers advertising her and Ameslap's mayoral ticket, and was thus in direct violation of this statute.

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. A 100 Penalty Unit Fine, and 10 minutes of imprisonment, with respect to one count of first offence of Harassment of a Polling Place.

NOTE: While the Commonwealth does not recommend the maximum CCA sentence for this crime, the maximum sentence does include two months disqualification from office. Following the SCR 21 verdict wherein the court stated that the sentencing recommendation given by the commonwealth need not be followed by a presiding Judicial officer, the jurisdiction in this case must be to the Supreme Court as it involves disqualification from office.
Click to expand...

V. WITNESS LIST
Rookieblue14 - Investigator
Multiman155 - Witnessed the event

VI. EVIDENCE
Warrant Transcript.pdf (attached at the end)
Staff Ticket Transcript.pdf (attached at the end)
Oakridge_Townhall.png
Warrant_Return_1.png
Warrant_Return_2.png
Warrant_Return_3.png
Warrant_Return_4.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 19th day of January, 2026

 

Attachments

Last edited:

Writ of Summons



@Sofia2750 is required to appear before the Supreme Court in the case of Commonwealth of Redmont v. Sofia2750 [2026] SCR 2.

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.

 
Noting for the record that it was a 2-1 decision to accept jurisdiction. With Associate Justice Matthew100x & Chief Justice Aladeen22 accepting jurisdiction, with Associate Justice Smallfries4 concurring/dissenting on jurisdiction.
 
Last edited:
Im present
 
Your honor, we have reached a plea deal:

Sofia2750 agrees to plea no contest and we are dropping the imprisonment sentencing.
 
_budo said:
Your honor, we have reached a plea deal:

Sofia2750 agrees to plea no contest and we are dropping the imprisonment sentencing.
Click to expand...

Plea


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
PLEA

Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Sofia2750
Defendant

I. ENTRY OF PLEA​

1. Defendant pleads NO CONTEST to the charge of Harassment of a Polling Place.

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 26th day of January 2026


1769453546802.png
 
The court is taking notice that a plea deal has been given by the prosecution and accepted by the defendant. For future cases, @ToadKing while we appreciate you confirming that your client is accepting the plea deal by pleading no contest, please wait for us to ask for confirmation.

In a 2-0-1 decision signed by Associate Justice Matthew100x and Associate Justice Smallfries4, the Court issues a writ of mandamus ordering the DHS to give Sofia's criminal record in accordinace to § 5(2)(d) of the Act of Congress - Criminal Code Act so that the Court may do the Anthony factors. (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. Anthony_Org [2025] SCR 21).
 
We ask that the prosecution please submit a brief in the next 72 hours on the sentencing factors explaining why it seeks only a 100 penalty unit fine from the defendant. After the prosecution posts their brief, the defendant will have 72 hours to rebut or affirm the prosecution's argument by submitting their own brief on the sentencing factors.
 

Brief


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Brief -

Your Honour,
The prosecution seeks only a 100 penalty unit fine from the Defendant due to the following reasons

  • Other Spawn locations, like the ones in Reville or Aventura are not located within 50 blocks of the polling place. So, the defendant most likely didn't realise that Oakridge spawn was within 50 blocks of the polling place.
  • More likely than not, the defendant had no malicious intention and distributing campaign materials within 50 blocks of the polling place was a genuine mistake.
  • The maximum imprisonment sentence available for this crime is a mere 10 minutes. It wouldn't serve any meaningful purpose in this case especially since it is highly likely that this was a genuine mistake from the defendant's side.
  • Regardless of these mitigating factors, the defendant was in direct violation of the statute and should face some sort of punishment so this conduct isn't repeated.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top