Lawsuit: Adjourned The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Steveshat [2024] FCR 79

[Unseatedduke1]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION​

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

steveshat
Defendant

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

The Defendant established a group called the "Oakridge Hate Community (OHC)" in Redmont. Following the group's formation and promotion, the Commonwealth launched an investigation due to its hateful nature. The investigation revealed evidence that the group's leader was inciting crimes and pressuring members to harass residents of Oakridge.


I. PARTIES
The Commonwealth of Redmont
steveshat

II. FACTS

1. The Defendant is the owner and creator of the Oakridge Hate Community (OHC) and owns the associated Discord server.

2. The Defendant established group policies that include statements such as, "It is encouraged to kill Oakridge citizens on sight. It is even more encouraged to video tape it and post here."

3. The Defendant used a "webhook" to post these statements, indicating that, as the owner of the Discord server and leader of the group, they are responsible for making these statements.

4. The Defendant plans to harass members of the Oakridge community, as evidenced by the policy stating, "All Redmont citizens pertain the right to humiliate, kill, rob, wound, torture, or hate any Oakridge citizen."

5. The clear goal of the group, as indicated by its name, "Oakridge Hate Community," and the policies set by the Defendant, constitutes incitement.

6. The Defendant's actions and leadership pose a substantial threat to public safety and order.

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

1. Incitement: The Defendant, in their capacity as group leader and Discord server owner, encourages members of the group to commit crimes, including murder and outright harassment.

2. Conspiracy to Commit Harassment: The Defendant's intent to harass Oakridge citizens is evident from the group's name and the policies they have established.


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

1. Incitement: The Commonwealth requests a sentence of a $3,000 fine and 15 minutes of jail time.

2. Conspiracy to Commit Harassment: The Commonwealth requests a sentence of an $8,000 fine and 30 minutes of jail time.


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 31st day of May 2024

Witness List:
DC Staff
The Superior10
Sumo

Evidence:

Spoiler: Exhibit A

Spoiler: Exhibit B

Spoiler: Exhibit C

Spoiler: Exhibit D

Spoiler: Exhibit E

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

@steveshat is required to appear before the court in the case of The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Steveshat. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​

 

[steveshat]

I plead guilty to all charges. However I do request a lighter sentencing as this is my first offense of both charges and the OHC is meant to be taken as a joke and not something serious.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

This court will enter recess pending a verdict.

 

[End]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT

The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Steveshat [2024] FCR 79

I. PROSECUTION'S POSITION

1. The prosecution alleges that the defendant, in their capacity as group leader and Discord server owner, encouraged members of the OHC group to commit crimes, including murder and harassment.
2. The prosecution alleges that the defendant's intent to harass Oakridge citizens is evident from the group name and the policies they have established.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION

1. The defendant entered a guilty plea

2. The defendant requests lighter sentencing due to it being a first time occurrence on both charges and that the OHC was designed to be satirical.

III. THE COURT OPINION

The court holds the opinion that while this may or may not have been intended to be satirical in nature, it had the potential to have a very real impact.

The defendant's actions are consistent with both the charges and I have taken into account the guilty plea.

IV. SENTENCING
In the matter of FCR 87, I issue the following sentence:

1. You are to be fined $3,000 for incitement.

2. You are to be fined $7,000 for conspiracy to commit harassment.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.