Lawsuit: In Session Commonwealth of Redmont v. FloofyLunafox [2026] SCR 18

E

Ebborsnam

Citizen
Supporter
Justice Department
Health Department
Grave Digger
Ebborsnam
Ebborsnam
State Prosecutor
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.

FloofyLunafox
Defendant

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

PROSECUTING AUTHORITY REPORT
The Defendant was observed distributing pancakes bearing the item name "Vote WPR on July 8–10th! Fight wealth inequality" to an individual while inside the State Department building. Such conduct constitutes 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. FloofyLunafox(Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. On 8 July 2026, the Department of Justice received a report alleging that the Defendant was engaging in the harassment of a polling place within the State Department building, a designated polling place.
2. The evidence received provides that the Defendant threw a pancake at the reporting individual. The pancake was named: "Vote WPR on July 8–10th! Fight wealth inequality." (P-001).
3. By distributing an item containing an electoral message directly to another individual within a polling place, the Defendant engaged in person-to-person campaigning inside a polling place during the election period.
4. The Defendant was registered as a candidate for the July House of Representatives election on 7 July 2026. (P-002)

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
Article 8, 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 threw a pancake, with an item name asking that individual to vote for the WPR political party. 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

 

Writ of Summons



@FloofyLunafox is commanded to appear before the Supreme Court in the case of Commonwealth of Redmont v. Floofylunafox [2026] SCR 18

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.

 
Present your honor on behalf of @FloofyLunafox.

Screenshot 2026-07-12 101445.png
 

Motion


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF REDMONT
MOTION TO NOELLE PROSEQUI

Your Honour, the Department of Justice no longer wishes to pursue this case due to unfortunate public interference in what otherwise should have been a non-partisan and fair process. We request the dismissal be made with prejudice.

 
  • Heart
Reactions: MJL
zLost said:
Your Honor, as Acting Attorney General, the Department of Justice retracts the above Motion to Nolle Prosequi.
Click to expand...

On discussion, the Court unanimously accepts the retraction of the Commonwealth's motion.

@MJL Greetings, present a plea within 48 Hours.
 
Muggy21 said:
On discussion, the Court unanimously accepts the retraction of the Commonwealth's motion.

@MJL Greetings, present a plea within 48 Hours.
Click to expand...

Alright, then...

Plea


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
PLEA

The Commonwealth of Redmont,
Prosecution

v.

FloofyLunafox,
Defendant

I. PLEA
The Defendant pleads NOT GUILTY on 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: 12 July 2026

 
MJL said:
Your honor, I would ask you re-consider this. An in-game trial is desired by my side as well.
Click to expand...
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court declines what we believe to be a motion for reconsideration. We will not, and likely will never, host an in-game trial in full.

To begin with, the matter of scheduling is at issue. On top of the hassle of trying to get both parties and their counsel on at the same time for the full length of an in-game trial (though somewhat easier with the Commonwealth as a party), the Supreme Court would all have to have our schedules align as well. Having six or seven mandatory participants to the full length of a trial makes scheduling exceedingly difficult, and would perhaps take weeks to find a date—to say nothing of an abrupt cancellation, and then further planning.

Next, trial record issues present themselves. Though true we could indeed record the proceedings and share, it is far easier, more accessible, and more transparent (both for our sakes when making judgments and for future readers of this docket) to have all major postings be done via text, here, on the forums.

Further, the quality of proceedings and importance of this case must be considered. This is not some petty thievery, drunken misdemeanor, or mundane contract breach. The action alleged is one of those few heinous crimes against the Commonwealth that not only is allowed to result in a disqualification from office, but also stands within the very narrow original jurisdiction of this Supreme Court. Commonwealth of Redmont v. Sofia2750 [2026] SCR 2 (Smallfries4, J., dissenting).

In-game trials, though certainly quicker and perhaps more enjoyable for participants, are obviously and noticeably of lower quality than the slower, methodical, and filing-based proceedings that are more common today. Due to the high import of both this case, and of the last-resort nature of this very court, we believe it is too risky and somewhat improper to at a certain level encourage less quality in court proceedings. In-game proceedings can certainly happen with this court, and we created appellate oral argument for that very purpose—but as a supplement to text filings, not a replacement. One should remember that the Supreme Court—as highest court in the land—produces binding opinions that shape the law, sometimes monumentally. These opinions and the cases that create them should be as easily available to the general public as possible, and in-game trials (even when recorded) hinder that.

Therefore, we deny this motion of reconsideration en banc. Trial proceedings shall continue under the presiding officer.
 

Motion


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR NOLLE PROSEQUI

Your Honor,

The Commonwealth moves to dismiss this case by motion for nolle prosequi. The Department of Justice acknowledges that the Commonwealth has previously withdrawn a motion for nolle prosequi in this case, and humbly asks the Court's forgiveness for doing so again in this short timespan, it was not the Commonwealth's intention to waste the precious time of this court.

The basis for this motion is that the circumstances surrounding this case have proven to be troublesome. The public and political distractions have compromised this controversy such that we no longer believe a fair and objective resolution is attainable. In the interest of preserving the public's confidence in our legal processes, we are not going to pursue these charges.

Although the Commonwealth seeks dismissal of the charge of Harassment of a Polling Place in this case, it wishes to clarify that it does not condone the alleged conduct. The Commonwealth will continue to prosecute such conduct in similar cases should it occur in the future.

The Department of Justice further wishes to clarify that its interpretation of the Electoral Act remains unchanged. In the Department's interpretation, §11(2)(a) is not limited to when there is an ongoing election. It prohibits campaign-related advertising inside a building containing a polling place. Furthermore, §11(1)(c) permanently designates the Department of State building as one that "must contain a polling place." That designation is not limited to an ongoing election. Accordingly, the Commonwealth's position is that the Department of State building permanently contains a polling place and thus that the restrictions set in §11(2) apply at all times.

Finally, the Commonwealth intends this motion to serve as a notice to the Legislature. Should the Legislature find that this interpretation does not reflect its intent, it should clarify or amend the Electoral Act accordingly.

 
Ebborsnam said:

Motion


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR NOLLE PROSEQUI

Your Honor,

The Commonwealth moves to dismiss this case by motion for nolle prosequi. The Department of Justice acknowledges that the Commonwealth has previously withdrawn a motion for nolle prosequi in this case, and humbly asks the Court's forgiveness for doing so again in this short timespan, it was not the Commonwealth's intention to waste the precious time of this court.

The basis for this motion is that the circumstances surrounding this case have proven to be troublesome. The public and political distractions have compromised this controversy such that we no longer believe a fair and objective resolution is attainable. In the interest of preserving the public's confidence in our legal processes, we are not going to pursue these charges.

Although the Commonwealth seeks dismissal of the charge of Harassment of a Polling Place in this case, it wishes to clarify that it does not condone the alleged conduct. The Commonwealth will continue to prosecute such conduct in similar cases should it occur in the future.

The Department of Justice further wishes to clarify that its interpretation of the Electoral Act remains unchanged. In the Department's interpretation, §11(2)(a) is not limited to when there is an ongoing election. It prohibits campaign-related advertising inside a building containing a polling place. Furthermore, §11(1)(c) permanently designates the Department of State building as one that "must contain a polling place." That designation is not limited to an ongoing election. Accordingly, the Commonwealth's position is that the Department of State building permanently contains a polling place and thus that the restrictions set in §11(2) apply at all times.

Finally, the Commonwealth intends this motion to serve as a notice to the Legislature. Should the Legislature find that this interpretation does not reflect its intent, it should clarify or amend the Electoral Act accordingly.

Click to expand...

Motion


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR NOLLE PROSEQUI

Defense does not object. We shall, however, note that one of my client's colleagues has introduced the Clarification of the Harassment of a Polling Place Offence Act to address this concern.

It should also be pointed out that this facts of this case has lead to a legislative hearing in the House of Representatives. It can be said that Congress is well notified about these proceedings.

We thank the Commonwealth for their time and are glad to see justice secured at last.

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