Lawsuit: Pending Commonwealth of Redmont Vs CHUD.Inc [2026] FCR 19

[aubunny]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION


Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

CHUD.Inc
Defendant

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

On December 11th, the Commonwealth became aware of the possession of Mininukes and Fatmans', classified by the Criminal Terminology Act as a Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD) [Section 5.1.a.ii and Section 5.1.a.i of the CTA Respectively.] within the chestshops of a "CHUD.Inc", a sole proprietorship beholden to the user "CzarKovalev". These chestshops were located on the plots C530, and CBD041. Through the search of publicly accessible areas within these plots, conducted on January 10th, 2026, the RBI was able to determine the intent to sell both products in publicly accessible and ongoing chestshops, constituting Conspiracy to Commit Weapon of Mass Destruction Trafficking, as the chestshops within the property owned by the defendant would hold 3,485 WMDs in total. Additionally, warrants conducted by the RBI reveal the Trafficking of 257 WMDs between defendant and citizen Taskings_, who utilizing their access to the chestshops, conducted transactions between the two beholden parties. [P-02] [P-03] An Additional 8 WMDs were sold to the public, with 3 different individual sales, [P-01][P-04][P-05] constituting the Trafficking of Weapon of Mass Destruction as defined in the Redmont Criminal Code Part VI, §8.

I. PARTIES
1. Commonwealth of Redmont
2. CzarKovalev
3. Chud.Inc

II. FACTS
1. On or before the Date of January 10th 2026, CHUD.Inc was holding chestshops within the plots C530 and CBD041
2. These chestshops, at the date of seizure of its contents, contained a combined 3,485 items
3. These referenced items fall under the category of WMD, per the Criminal Terminology Act.
4. The Criminal Code Act Part VI, §8 defines Weapon of Mass Destruction Trafficking as "sells, distributes, or traffics any substance deemed to be a weapon of mass destruction".
5. In one instance, 192 WMDs were traded between the defendant, and citizen Taskings_
6. In an additional separate instance, 25 WMDs were traded between the defendant, and citizen Taskings_
7. On or around January 7th, 2026, CHUD.Inc sold 2 WMDs to buyer JustaDumpling, with the sale taking place within either C530 or CBD041.
8. On or around January 8th, 2026 CHUD.Inc sold 1 WMD to buyer roy405, with the sale taking place within either C530 or CBD041.
9. On or around the 10th of December, 2025, 5 WMDs were sold to buyer NukeyPooky, with the sale taking place within either C530 or CBD041.
10. Facts 5 through 9 constitute either distribution, transfer, or sale between parties.

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. 1. Five Counts of Weapon of Mass Destruction Trafficking. Given that the sale of both Fatmans and MiniNukes is illegal under the Criminal Code Act Part VI, § 8. One charge for each individual instance of distribution.


IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
300 Penalty Units [30 Thousand Redmont Dollars] for 5 counts of Weapon of Mass Destruction Trafficking,Given a reduced sentencing from 100 Penalty Units per crime.
75 Minutes of Imprisonment, for 5 counts of Weapon of Mass Destruction Trafficking, Given a reduced sentencing from the 60 minutes Imprisonment per charge for the crime.

V. WITNESS LIST
1) Superwoops -RBI Investigator in charge of investigation into CHUD.INC


VI. EVIDENCE:

Spoiler: P-01

Spoiler: P-02

Spoiler: P-03

Spoiler: P-04

Spoiler: P-05

Spoiler: P-06

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 16th day of March 2026

 

[Franciscus]

Writ of Summons

@CzarKovalev, is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Commonwealth of Redmont Vs CHUD.Inc [2026] FCR 19

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.

 

[aubunny]

Motion

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

The Plaintiff brings to attention the fact that the defendant CHUD.Inc's sole proprietor, CzarKovalev, is permanently deported.
Deported players have no rights in our nation (SCR 2 [2025])
Pursuant to The Legal Entity Act (Section 10), a sole proprietorship cannot be represented independently of its owner.

There is no defense allotted to the opposing party, and as such, the case should go to default judgement, similar to precedent set in (FCR 122 [2025]) or (FCR 57 [2025])

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

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

The Plaintiff brings to attention the fact that the defendant CHUD.Inc's sole proprietor, CzarKovalev, is permanently deported.
Deported players have no rights in our nation (SCR 2 [2025])
Pursuant to The Legal Entity Act (Section 10), a sole proprietorship cannot be represented independently of its owner.

There is no defense allotted to the opposing party, and as such, the case should go to default judgement, similar to precedent set in (FCR 122 [2025]) or (FCR 57 [2025])

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER - MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

Granted.

The Court is in recess pending a verdict. Should this Court have a question of the prosecution, this Court shall issue a corresponding Order to Show Cause pursuant to Section 10 of the Regulations of the Federal Court.

 

[Franciscus]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - PROVIDENCE OF EVIDENCE

The Court, upon examining this case, notes several screenshots are present, and that an investigator is on the witness list. It is this Court's preliminary guess that the prosecution may have intended to have that investigator testify in Court in order to provide corroboration as to the relation of the various screenshots to the Defendant(s), or to help walk the Court through the investigation.

Prosecution requested default judgement (Post No. 3). No such testimony has been provided, so this Court must evaluate the case on its record. Default judgment does does not mean that the full prayer in the complaint is necessarily granted (The Commonwealth of Redmont v. ReinausPrinzzip [2021] SCR 20, granting prayers partially; Vernicia v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 51, granting a default judgement for the Plaintiff and ruling for defense). Instead, upon granting default judgement, a "presiding officer still has the ability to evaluate the case and ultimately rule for either party" ([2025] FCR 51 - Appeal).

As criminal charges must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and in line with Section 10.2 of the Regulations of the Federal Court, the Court seeks to ensure that the record is adequately developed.

The Court thus orders the Prosecution to respond to the following questions within the next 72 hours:

1. To what extent the Commonwealth possess any additional evidence that may be relevant to the chain-of-possession, or providence, of the exhibits contained in the complaint?
2. To what extent does the Commonwealth wish to waive its ability to call witnesses in this case, as opposed to proceding through the normal course of a trial to witness testimony?

Yours,
Judge Multi

 

[aubunny]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - PROVIDENCE OF EVIDENCE

The Court, upon examining this case, notes several screenshots are present, and that an investigator is on the witness list. It is this Court's preliminary guess that the prosecution may have intended to have that investigator testify in Court in order to provide corroboration as to the relation of the various screenshots to the Defendant(s), or to help walk the Court through the investigation.

Prosecution requested default judgement (Post No. 3). No such testimony has been provided, so this Court must evaluate the case on its record. Default judgment does does not mean that the full prayer in the complaint is necessarily granted (The Commonwealth of Redmont v. ReinausPrinzzip [2021] SCR 20, granting prayers partially; Vernicia v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 51, granting a default judgement for the Plaintiff and ruling for defense). Instead, upon granting default judgement, a "presiding officer still has the ability to evaluate the case and ultimately rule for either party" ([2025] FCR 51 - Appeal).

As criminal charges must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and in line with Section 10.2 of the Regulations of the Federal Court, the Court seeks to ensure that the record is adequately developed.

The Court thus orders the Prosecution to respond to the following questions within the next 72 hours:

1. To what extent the Commonwealth possess any additional evidence that may be relevant to the chain-of-possession, or providence, of the exhibits contained in the complaint?
2. To what extent does the Commonwealth wish to waive its ability to call witnesses in this case, as opposed to proceding through the normal course of a trial to witness testimony?

Yours,
Judge Multi

Brief

Your honor, We are pleased to respond to these questions and more.
It was originally the intention of the plaintiff to lay out more information regarding the case, as the plaintiff attempts to mitigate bloat within case filings. By your grace we shall provide some more illumination.

Providence
Allow the plaintiff to begin by breaking down the already existing evidence;

P-01, P-04, P-05
P-01, 4, and 5, Collectively called the "Chestshop sales" Are pieces of evidence collected within our search and seizure warrant of the plots C530,

P-01 showcases the transactions brought to us by the DOC, these contain clear data of Mininukes being purchased from a chestshop owned by the defendant, with its Location being 3440, 71, 3765, which resides upon the plot C530 [P-07]

P-04 and P-05 are sadly collected during the month of January, the same month as reported transactions and as such, did not have the blessing of being provided in proper format. It is still clear to see that through provided search warrants [P-08] That these sales took place under the DB CHUD.Inc, with "arrow" representative of mininukes, as admitted by staff [P-08]

P-02, P-03
P-02 and P-03 are our "Discrete Transactions", Describing two parties using mutual chestshop access to distribute WMDs. Both instances showcase CzarKovalev inputting WMDs into a chestshop, found within C530 as found with its coordinates show in both screenshots, and then said Weapons of Mass Destruction being distributed to another player by their shared mutual access to the chest. This constitutes textbook distribution.

The intention of the evidence provided was to link a clear line between the possession within the plots of C530 and/or CBD041, possession has already been fully ruled upon by seizure warrant [P-09] and it is readily apparent that the a number of produced WMDs were trafficked.

New Evidence
With your honors permission, the plaintiff would like to motion the following into life.

Spoiler: P-07

P-07 shows the coordinates of the transaction, which lines up directly to the plot which during the date of December 10th, was owned by the defendant.

Spoiler: P-08

P-08 shows the direct correlation with previous evidence to a fulfilled search warrant, with P-08 in mind, it is clear that the evidence presented in the brief is not unsubstantial, and has direct ties to the defendant.

Spoiler: P-09

P-09 shows the seizure of 3453 mininuke's, and 32 fatman's on the Plot C530, showing further evidence that the alleged transfers did take place for the defendant, as they were currently in possession of WMDs, with clear intent to traffic [P-01] [P-04] [P-05] with chestshops containing WMDs on the premises.

Here was the evidence the plaintiff would have submitted in the event of an actual discovery period. Just further clarity pointing the transactions to the defendant.

WITNESS
And finally, we come to the question as to the validity of proceeding through normal course of trial to the witness testimony. It is the opinion of the plaintiff that the value of additional testimony as provided by logs at this time would be about equal to the addition of a witness to confirm these facts as gathered legitimately. As such, the plaintiff waives their right to witness questioning in favor of going direct to verdict. Pending additional orders to show cause.