Lawsuit: In Session Commonwealth of Redmont v. YoshiKarter [2026] SCR 17

E

Ebborsnam

Citizen
Supporter
Health Department
Grave Digger
Ebborsnam
Ebborsnam
Attorney
Joined
Oct 4, 2024
Messages
85

Case Filing


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

YoshiKarter
Defendant

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

PROSECUTING AUTHORITY REPORT
The Defendant was observed privately messaging an individual, asking them to vote for the Defendant, while standing next to the House of Representatives ballot box (within a 15-block range). Such conduct meets the definition of prohibited person-to-person campaigning within a polling place under the Electoral Act and is punishable pursuant to Part II, §8 of the Criminal Code Act.

I. PARTIES
1. The Commonwealth of Redmont (Plaintiff)
2. YoshiKarter (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. The Defendant was confirmed as a candidate for the House of Representatives Elections - JUNE 2026 (Special #3) on 18 June 2026. (P-003)
2. On 19 June 2026, the Department of Justice received a report alleging that House of Representatives candidate YoshiKarter privately messaged an individual, requesting that they vote for the Defendant while the Defendant was within a 15-block radius of the House of Representatives ballot box. (P-001 and P-002)
3. The Department of Justice reviewed the evidence submitted by the reporter and determined that the evidence was sufficient to prove the alleged misconduct. No further investigation was deemed necessary.

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. One count of Criminal Code Act, Part II, §8 - Harassment of a Polling Place
Section 8 of Part II of the Criminal Code Act provides that:
"A person commits an offence if the person:
(a) 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."

The Defendant was present inside the building containing the polling place when they privately messaged a voter, asking that individual to vote for them. This conduct meets the definition of person-to-person campaigning within a building containing a polling place and therefore violates §11(2)(a) of the Electoral Act, which provides:
"(a) campaign-related advertising, including but not limited to physical campaign propaganda and person-to-person campaigning, is prohibited within 50 blocks of a building where a polling place is located, or inside a building containing a polling place; and
(b) candidates are prohibited from loitering in or around a ballot box associated with the election in which they are running, including remaining within a 15-block radius of any such ballot box for extended periods of time, in order to preserve the freedom of voters and prevent any perception of interference or undue influence."

By engaging in prohibited person-to-person campaigning while inside the building containing the polling place, the Defendant violated the restrictions set out in §11(2) of the Electoral Act. Thus, the Defendant’s conduct qualifies as Harassment of a Polling Place.

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
For one count of Harassment of a Polling Place:
1. A fine of 100 Penalty Units, amounting to $12,000 dollars.
2. 10 minutes of imprisonment.
3. Disqualification from holding office for a period of two months.

V. EVIDENCE

1783429565083.png
1783429599202.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 7th day of July 2026

 
Last edited:
It has been brought to my attention that this case belongs in the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court due to one of the verdict possibilities being disqualification from office. I respectfully request that this case is moved to the Supreme Court forum and that the Court allows me to amend the complaint to Supreme Court instead of Federal Court.
 
The action was removed to the Supreme Court. I will be the presiding officer.

Writ of Summons


@YoshiKarter is required to appear before the Supreme Court in the case of Commonwealth of Redmont v. Yoshikarter [2026] SCR 17

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.

 
SteelRain and Lao19 for the defendant are present your honor. We would like to request that the Court grants an additional 72 hours for a plea submission due to ongoing negotiations with the Commonwealth.
 
Your Honor, I am pleased to announce that the Department of Justice and the Defendant have reached a plea agreement. The Defense has agreed to the following verdict:
For one count of Harassment of a polling place:
1. A fine of $2000.
2. 10 minutes of imprisonment.
3. Disqualification from holding office for a period of two months.
 
Ebborsnam said:
Your Honor, I am pleased to announce that the Department of Justice and the Defendant have reached a plea agreement. The Defense has agreed to the following verdict:
For one count of Harassment of a polling place:
1. A fine of $2000.
2. 10 minutes of imprisonment.
3. Disqualification from holding office for a period of two months.
Click to expand...
The defense confirms this, your honor.
 
Hello, Attorney General Juniperfig here with a settlement offer.

I will give everyone in this case (lawyers, parties, judges) $2,500 each if you drop this case with prejudice.

Thank you for your time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top