Lawsuit: Pending Commonwealth of Redmont v. urb5n [2025] FCR 83

[Talion77]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION


Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

urb5n
Defendant

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

Recently, it was brought to the Commonwealth’s knowledge that urb5n conspired to exploit the wealth of new players for his own gain. This malicious act needs to be brought to justice.

I. PARTIES
1. Commonwealth of Redmont (represented by Talion77)
2. urb5n

II. FACTS

1. A few days prior to today, the Defendant stated the following in general-chat: „METALICU_S do /pay urb5n 1000 fr fr“. (P-001)

2. Shortly after that, the Defendant stated the following: „roxo_doxo you can continue if you do /pay urb5n 1215“. (P-001)

3. These statements both told new players to pay the Defendant their starter money, in case of roxo_doxo also additional money acquired by other means.

4. These statements can be used to mislead new players, exploiting their inexperience and wealth for unlawful gain.

5. The Criminal Code Act lists „Exploitation of New Players“ as an indictable offence with a penalty of up to 200 Penalty Units and up to 10 minutes imprisonment.

6. urb5n admits, in the context of a RBI investigation, to having told new players to send him their starter money. (P-002)

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

1. Two counts of Conspiracy to commit Exploitation of New Players as per the Criminal Code Act. The Defendant tried to exploit the inexperience and wealth of METALICU_S and roxo_doxo for unlawful gain, by telling them to pay him 1000$ and 1215$ respectively. The new players have not carried out these actions to the knowledge of the Commonwealth, but the statements clearly show intent to the above. This is also supported by the admission of guilt.

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

1. A fine of 200 Penalty Units and 10 minutes of imprisonment on two counts of Conspiracy to commit Exploitation of New Players, as per the Criminal Code Act.

List of Witnesses:

1. urb5n (Defendant)
2. pricelessAgrari (RBI Investigator)

List of Evidence:

Spoiler: P-001

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 13th day of August 2025

 

[ko531]

Writ of Summons

@urban is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case ofThe Commonwealth of Redmont v. urb5n [2025] FCR 83

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.

 

[urban]

how do i like appear in federal court i dont know shit about this

 

[urban]

oh wait nvm i found out im present

 

[ko531]

how do i like appear in federal court i dont know shit about this

You made your appearance, you have 48 hours to provide an answer to complaint.

You have the option to request a Public Defender if you wish.

 

[urban]

I wish JamesTheSlay to represent me in the Commonwealth of Redmont v. urb5n [2025] FCR 83

 

[James]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The new players in question, "METALIC_US", and "Roxo_Doxo", did not accept and further more this was an obvious Joke that if they did accept, which there is no evidence they did, was a mistake on the player.

 

[Talion77]

Permission to respond, your honor.

 

[ko531]

Permission to respond, your honor.

You have 24 hours to do so.

 

[Talion77]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The new players in question, "METALIC_US", and "Roxo_Doxo", did not accept and further more this was an obvious Joke that if they did accept, which there is no evidence they did, was a mistake on the player.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

By filing the motion to dismiss, defendant has violated Rule 5.1 of the Court Rules and Procedures, as he has not specified the rule which he wishes to file the motion under.

 

[Muggy21]

Your Honour,

The RCLU has an interest in criminal prosecutions in the Commonwealth. May we file an amicus curiae brief in regard to the defendant's constitutional rights?

 

[Talion77]

Your Honour,

The RCLU has an interest in criminal prosecutions in the Commonwealth. May we file an amicus curiae brief in regard to the defendant's constitutional rights?

Your Honor, permission to respond.

 

[James]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO NOLLE PROSEQUI

The new players in question, "METALIC_US", and "Roxo_Doxo", did not accept and further more this was an obvious Joke that if they did accept, which there is no evidence they did, was a mistake on the player.

I meant to do nolle prosequi

 

[Talion77]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO NOLLE PROSEQUI

The new players in question, "METALIC_US", and "Roxo_Doxo", did not accept and further more this was an obvious Joke that if they did accept, which there is no evidence they did, was a mistake on the player.

I meant to do nolle prosequi

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor, as per the Motions Guide, Motions to Nolle Prosqui are only to be filed by the prosecution.

 

[ko531]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The new players in question, "METALIC_US", and "Roxo_Doxo", did not accept and further more this was an obvious Joke that if they did accept, which there is no evidence they did, was a mistake on the player.

Motion Denied. You did not cite a rule to dismiss under.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

By filing the motion to dismiss, defendant has violated Rule 5.1 of the Court Rules and Procedures, as he has not specified the rule which he wishes to file the motion under.

Sustained.

Your Honour,

The RCLU has an interest in criminal prosecutions in the Commonwealth. May we file an amicus curiae brief in regard to the defendant's constitutional rights?

Granted. You have 24 hours.

Your Honor, permission to respond.

Denied.

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO NOLLE PROSEQUI

The new players in question, "METALIC_US", and "Roxo_Doxo", did not accept and further more this was an obvious Joke that if they did accept, which there is no evidence they did, was a mistake on the player.

I meant to do nolle prosequi

Motion denied. Nolle Prosequi is a motion only the plaintiff/prosecution can make.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor, as per the Motions Guide, Motions to Nolle Prosqui are only to be filed by the prosecution.

Sustained.

 

[Muggy21]

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
AMICUS BRIEF by the Redmont Civil Liberties Union for
Commonwealth v. urb5n [2025] FCR 83


I. COMMERCIAL STANDARDS ACT REQUIRES A TRANSACTION

1. The Defendant is charged with “Conspiracy of Exploitation of New Players” under the Criminal Code Act § 7(10); § 9(22), which relies on the Commercial Standards Act § 6(a) defining exploitation as intentional fraud.
   
   
2. Fraud, even in the best light for the Prosecution, requires “an intentional or reckless misrepresentation or omission of an important fact … [with] actual, quantifiable injury or damages,” yet no transaction occurred here.
   
   
3. Without a transaction, the fundamental illegal act necessary for the exploitation of a player is absent.
   
   
4. Although the charge is conspiracy, this still forces the Prosecution to prove intent based only on the utterance of a single line.
   
   
5. Under Criminal Code Act Part I (2), construing a non-serious utterance as criminal would yield “absurd, unjust, or unintended results,” and therefore any continued prosecution unjustly limits freedom of equality.

II. ADMISSIONS OF GUILT MUST BE NARROWLY CONSTRUED.

1. The Commonwealth states an admission of guilt exists in P-002. The RCLU respectfully submits that’s a stretch, borderline on perjury.
   
   
2. As a preface, the Commonwealth submits an interrogation of the defendant, but does not immediately offer proof of compliance with the Miranda Warning Act (3), where citizens are “must be advised, that they have the right to remain silent.”
3. First, the RBI investigator asks “Are you aware that exploiting new players is illegal?”
   1. This question is irrelevant. Even if guilty, mere awareness of the law does not meet culpability.
   2. The Defendant answers in the affirmative.
4. Second, the RBI investigator asks “Do you admit to telling new players to send their starter money to you in general?”
   1. This question is an admission of potentially immoral behavior, not criminal intent.
   2. To equate it with exploitation ignores the essential requirement of fraudulent intent or unlawful gain.
   3. For example, if a shop owner sells a service or item to a new player at a fair price, that transaction is legal and voluntary, and the mere fact the buyer is a new player does not convert a legitimate exchange into exploitation, even if it involves “starter money.”
   4. By the Commonwealth’s logic, any seller dealing with a new player could be branded as exploitative, which would criminalize ordinary commerce and erase the distinction between lawful business and fraud.
   5. The Defendant’s answer is therefore not proof of exploitation but merely acknowledgment of an exchange that, without deception or coercion, may be legally permissible.

5.The alleged admission is faulty and should be disregarded.

III. LACK OF ACTUAL VICTIM OR INJURY

1. Even if the Defendant’s statements are taken at face value, the record shows no new player actually transferred money to him.
   
   
2. Fraud and exploitation under the Commercial Standards Act require a victim who suffered actual, quantifiable injury.
   
   
3. Criminal liability cannot rest on hypothetical or speculative harm, otherwise every failed scam or joke would be criminalized.
   
   
4. Without an injured party, the essential element of exploitation is missing, and the charge cannot stand.

For all aforementioned reasons, the RCLU prays for dismissal.


[\brief]

 

[Imza]

Your Honour, from now on, I will be representing the defendant.

I believe the time to file his plea has elapsed; however, to preserve the defendant's right to a fair trial, I respectfully ask that the court grant us an additional 12 hours to submit it.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[Dogeington]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

The defence moves that the courts enter Summary Judgement, taking into consideration that:

1. No plea has been filed, and therefore the facts of the case are undisputed.

 

[Dogeington]

Your Honor,
The Commonwealth seeks to inform the courts that the defense's lawyer, RealImza, is an employee of the DOJ. In his position within the DOJ, he has had full access to all of the prosecution's internal communications, evidence, and strategy. This represents a large conflict of interest and a potential breach of attorney client privilege, as even unintentionally, Imza could use his knowledge of the prosecution's strategy in his defense. The Commonwealth also wishes to add that Imza's representation in this case could constitute corruption as deffined by the CCA.

1. (a) uses a government position to gain an unfair advantage for oneself or another, inconsistent with official duty.

 

[Imza]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

The defence moves that the courts enter Summary Judgement, taking into consideration that:

1. No plea has been filed, and therefore the facts of the case are undisputed.

Your Honour, permission to respond?

 

[Imza]

Your Honor,
The Commonwealth seeks to inform the courts that the defense's lawyer, RealImza, is an employee of the DOJ. In his position within the DOJ, he has had full access to all of the prosecution's internal communications, evidence, and strategy. This represents a large conflict of interest and a potential breach of attorney client privilege, as even unintentionally, Imza could use his knowledge of the prosecution's strategy in his defense. The Commonwealth also wishes to add that Imza's representation in this case could constitute corruption as deffined by the CCA.


View attachment 60477
View attachment 60478
View attachment 60479

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honour,

The comment by the Prosecution was not authorized or allowed by the court; therefore, the Prosecution has spoken out of turn. Due to this, the Defense respectfully requests that this message be stricken from the record and asks the court to hold the Prosecution in contempt.

 

[Dogeington]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honour,

The comment by the Prosecution was not authorized or allowed by the court; therefore, the Prosecution has spoken out of turn. Due to this, the Defense respectfully requests that this message be stricken from the record and asks the court to hold the Prosecution in contempt.

Your Honor,
I do apologize for speaking out of turn, but there’s no motion for "This is misconduct."

 

[ko531]

Your Honor,
The Commonwealth seeks to inform the courts that the defense's lawyer, RealImza, is an employee of the DOJ. In his position within the DOJ, he has had full access to all of the prosecution's internal communications, evidence, and strategy. This represents a large conflict of interest and a potential breach of attorney client privilege, as even unintentionally, Imza could use his knowledge of the prosecution's strategy in his defense. The Commonwealth also wishes to add that Imza's representation in this case could constitute corruption as deffined by the CCA.


View attachment 60477
View attachment 60478
View attachment 60479

This court is not going to prevent Realimza from representing the defendant. Similar issues have been brought up before as seen in:
The Commonwealth of Redmont v. V__D [2025] SCR 7
MegaminerM v. Blazora corporation [2025] FCR 27
Steveshat v. Vanguard [2024] FCR 62
Aladeen v. Redmont Bar Association [2024] FCR 46

Every example of this type of motion has been denied. To quote Judge ColonelKai on the issue: "I will not set the precedent of making choices on who to choose as legal counsel on behalf of private citizens who are perfectly capable of decision making on their own." I will not be setting that precedent either.

Your Honour, permission to respond?

Granted. You have 24 hours

 

[Imza]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

The defence moves that the courts enter Summary Judgement, taking into consideration that:

1. No plea has been filed, and therefore the facts of the case are undisputed.

Response

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

Your Honour,

Precedent shows that Summary Judgment may only occur if both parties have agreed to it. Some examples of this include:
SCR 1 [2025]
SCR 5 [2024]
FCR 44 [2025]
SCR 10 [2025]

In .Lucky_waq v. YourChillGamer [2025] FCR 15, the Honourable Former Judge Dartanman noted that: "As the Defendant is still entitled to legal counsel, we will not have Summary Judgement." My client, comparable to YourChillGamer in the aforementioned case, is entitled to competent legal counsel; he is likewise entitled to a fair trial. By granting Summary Judgment, you would be penalizing the defendant for an issue he was not responsible for and would be infringing on his constitutional right to a fair trial.

Further, in Vernicia v. RylandW [2025] FCR 5, the Honourable Former Justice Dr_Eksplosive denied the Plaintiff's motion for Summary Judgment and additionally remarked that: "The Defendant has provided a reasonable request to the court for an extension - and have subsequently declared their presence." The circumstances in this case are similar to Vernicia v. RylandW; in both cases, the Defense only narrowly failed to meet the deadline, and both arose on account of issues with counsel. Additionally, similar to RylandW in the aforementioned case, the Defense asked for a reasonable extension.

Due to the reasons listed above, the Defense respectfully asks that the court deny Summary Judgment and allow the Defense to file our plea.

Respectfully submitted,
RealImza,
Counsel for Defendant.

 

[ko531]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

The defence moves that the courts enter Summary Judgement, taking into consideration that:

1. No plea has been filed, and therefore the facts of the case are undisputed.

Motion for summary judgement denied.

As the defense now has new counsel, I will give them 24 hours to provide an answer to complaint.

 

[Dogeington]

This court is not going to prevent Realimza from representing the defendant. Similar issues have been brought up before as seen in:
The Commonwealth of Redmont v. V__D [2025] SCR 7
MegaminerM v. Blazora corporation [2025] FCR 27
Steveshat v. Vanguard [2024] FCR 62
Aladeen v. Redmont Bar Association [2024] FCR 46

Every example of this type of motion has been denied. To quote Judge ColonelKai on the issue: "I will not set the precedent of making choices on who to choose as legal counsel on behalf of private citizens who are perfectly capable of decision making on their own." I will not be setting that precedent either.


Granted. You have 24 hours

Motion

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

Your honor,

The Commonwealth moves that you reconsider this ruling.
In each cited case, the COI being alleged was not of the same severity as in this case:

Aladeen v. Redmont Bar Association [2024] FCR 46:
This ruling was due to a bill that the defense was attempting to apply ex post facto, where Alexander Love had been a part of both the filing and defending parties. The judge in that case stated that “ex post facto overrides this in a situation like this. Both sides are equal under the law.” Implying that if it were not for the ex post facto nature of the act, that they would be inclined to rule in the favor of the defense, removing Alexander Love.

Steveshat v. Vanguard [2024] FCR 62:
The ruling in this case was based on a now repealed law. Even within the provisions of the cited law, "a conflict of interest is defined as the situation where the same legal counsel represents both the defense and the plaintiff simultaneously in the same case.” would apply to RealImza, as seen from the screenshots, as RealImza began representing the defendant at 7:17am and notified the DOJ of the COI at 8:47am, with action being taken to remove him from the channels at 12:34pm. Within that unreported hour Imza had full access to the prosecution's internal communications, evidence, and strategy. The commonwealth fears that Imza will use this knowledge, and violate attorney client privilege between himself and the commonwealth in order to defend his client.

MegaminerM v. Blazora corporation [2025] FCR 27:
As stated by yourself, your honor, Judge ColonelKai made the ruling that “I don't believe it is within the court's purview to disallow lawyers from representing due to Conflict of Interest. Unless the plaintiff can bring up any legal ground, the court sees no threat to the integrity of the case.” The Commonwealth alleges that by allowing Imza to represent the defendant could constitute corruption as defined by the CCA. As Imza would have used his government position to gain an unfair advantage for oneself or another, inconsistent with official duty. By using his ability to read the prosecution's internal communications, evidence, and strategy, Imza gave himself and his client an unfair advantage that all defending themselves against the commonwealth in a criminal action case do not have. Should you rule to remove Imza from this case, that would be in line with the precedent set by Judge ColonelKai.

The Commonwealth of Redmont v. V__D [2025] SCR 7:
While the arguments made within the sidebar are not available to public view, the commonwealth can only assume that the nature of that alleged COI is not of the same magnitude as the matter at hand, as it would not be possible for MZD to have represented the commonwealth in this case, or to have had access to the commonwealth’s internal communications, evidence, and strategy.

Therefore the Commonwealth asks that you reconsider this ruling given the arguments provided.

 

[Imza]

Motion

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

Your honor,

The Commonwealth moves that you reconsider this ruling.
In each cited case, the COI being alleged was not of the same severity as in this case:

Aladeen v. Redmont Bar Association [2024] FCR 46:
This ruling was due to a bill that the defense was attempting to apply ex post facto, where Alexander Love had been a part of both the filing and defending parties. The judge in that case stated that “ex post facto overrides this in a situation like this. Both sides are equal under the law.” Implying that if it were not for the ex post facto nature of the act, that they would be inclined to rule in the favor of the defense, removing Alexander Love.

Steveshat v. Vanguard [2024] FCR 62:
The ruling in this case was based on a now repealed law. Even within the provisions of the cited law, "a conflict of interest is defined as the situation where the same legal counsel represents both the defense and the plaintiff simultaneously in the same case.” would apply to RealImza, as seen from the screenshots, as RealImza began representing the defendant at 7:17am and notified the DOJ of the COI at 8:47am, with action being taken to remove him from the channels at 12:34pm. Within that unreported hour Imza had full access to the prosecution's internal communications, evidence, and strategy. The commonwealth fears that Imza will use this knowledge, and violate attorney client privilege between himself and the commonwealth in order to defend his client.

MegaminerM v. Blazora corporation [2025] FCR 27:
As stated by yourself, your honor, Judge ColonelKai made the ruling that “I don't believe it is within the court's purview to disallow lawyers from representing due to Conflict of Interest. Unless the plaintiff can bring up any legal ground, the court sees no threat to the integrity of the case.” The Commonwealth alleges that by allowing Imza to represent the defendant could constitute corruption as defined by the CCA. As Imza would have used his government position to gain an unfair advantage for oneself or another, inconsistent with official duty. By using his ability to read the prosecution's internal communications, evidence, and strategy, Imza gave himself and his client an unfair advantage that all defending themselves against the commonwealth in a criminal action case do not have. Should you rule to remove Imza from this case, that would be in line with the precedent set by Judge ColonelKai.

The Commonwealth of Redmont v. V__D [2025] SCR 7:
While the arguments made within the sidebar are not available to public view, the commonwealth can only assume that the nature of that alleged COI is not of the same magnitude as the matter at hand, as it would not be possible for MZD to have represented the commonwealth in this case, or to have had access to the commonwealth’s internal communications, evidence, and strategy.

Therefore the Commonwealth asks that you reconsider this ruling given the arguments provided.

Your Honour, permission to respond?

 

[Imza]

Motion for summary judgement denied.

As the defense now has new counsel, I will give them 24 hours to provide an answer to complaint.

Your Honour,
Just to confirm, did you mean a plea or an answer to complaint? This is a criminal trial, not a civil one.

 

[ko531]

Your Honour, permission to respond?

Granted. You have 24 hours.

Your Honour,
Just to confirm, did you mean a plea or an answer to complaint? This is a criminal trial, not a civil one.

Plea. My bad for the confusion.

 

[Imza]

Plea

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
PLEA

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

urb5n (Represented by RealImza)
Defendant

I. ENTRY OF PLEA
1. The Defendant pleads NOT GUILTY to two charges of Conspiracy to commit Exploitation of New Players

By making this submission, I agree that 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 24th day of August 2025.

 

[Imza]

Your Honour,
With the approval of this modified injunction in Inknet v. Commonwealth, will this case be enjoined, too? The only evidence provided by the Prosecution is statements; they have not provided any additional evidence.

 

[ko531]

Your Honour,
With the approval of this modified injunction in Inknet v. Commonwealth, will this case be enjoined, too? The only evidence provided by the Prosecution is statements; they have not provided any additional evidence.

Yes, this case will be enjoined until the outcome of Inknet v. Commonwealth.