Lawsuit: Pending Commonwealth of Redmont v. xEndeavour [2026] SCR 21

[DETECTIVHOLMES]

Case Filing

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION


The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

xEndeavour
Defendant

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

PROSECUTING AUTHORITY REPORT
xEndeavour has repeatedly committed high crimes such as treason and severe crimes such as extortion, involuntary servitude, abuse of power, amongst others. This is not the first time charges like these are laid upon the defendant. It is important for the court of decide the fate of this case taking into consideration previous convictions.

I. PARTIES
1. The Commonwealth of Redmont (Prosecution)
2. xEndeavour (Defendant)
3. Scassany Contour
4. mesemi
5. Eeeenor

II. FACTS
1. xEndeavour used his privileges to remove an article about the 6/7 protests.
2. xEndeavour Extorted members of the MCN with a statement “If the instability keeps up then the server will just close”.
3. xEndeavour committed treason by removing the protest wiki page, an action which was predicted to cause political instability; several government departments have shut down due to this.
4. xEndeavour threatened staff members to process orders which were conflicting.
5. xEndeavour disrupted DOE operations by deleting one of their pages on the Wiki.
6. xEndeavour tried to incite staff members to cause further obstruction to the DOE by constantly redeleting the page.


III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. Extortion under the Criminal Code Act. The Defense willingly extorted the entirety of the Network Staff Team, threatening “If the instability keeps up then the server will just close”.
2. Treason under the Criminal Code Act. The Defense willingly disrupted the workflow and stability of the Commonwealth, causing a government shutdown that affected all government entities.
3. Involuntary Servitude under the Criminal Code Act, Under threats, forced staff members to process orders that conflicted with their moral standing
4. Abuse of Power under the Criminal Code Act, removed a troubling wiki article about themself from the Wiki using their powers, without prior authorization.
5. Obstruction of Government Department under the Criminal Code Act, Without permission from the DOE, Modified a wiki page under their jurisdiction, causing internal conflict.
6.Incitement under the Criminal Code Act, Tried to incite members of the MCN to delete the wiki page, which would be obstruction to the DOE’s services.

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
Due to the history and severity of the defendant’s actions, The Commonwealth would request the MAXIMUM penalty for above charges. Which would be:
1. 1000 penalty units and 120 minutes imprisonment for extorsion
2. 500 penalty units and 2 months disqualification from office for treason
3. 500 penalty units and 120 minutes imprisonment for involuntary servitude
4. 500 penalty units and 2 months disqualification from office for Abuse of power
5. 30 Penalty Units and 15 minutes imprisonment for incitement
6. A total of: 2030 Penalty Units, 255 minutes imprisonment, 4 months disqualification from office.

On behalf of the commonwealth respectfully submitted,
Lead Counsel: Solicitor General DETECTIVHOLMES on behalf of The Commonwealth of Redmont
Assistant Counsel: Special Prosecutor Dearev on behalf of The Commonwealth of Redmont
Secondary Counsel: Prosecutor Culls on behalf of The Commonwealth of Redmont

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 17th day of July 2026

 

[TheArtemis_]

Requesting to file an amicus brief regarding whether this Court has the lawful authority to try xEndeavour considering his status as King.

(See: Trial of Charles I, Trial of Louis XVI)

 

[juniperfig]

To be clear, I approved this. Any contempt charges arising from any of my DOJ employees doing anything should go straight to me. This applies to any shenanigans they may pull.

cc. @Smallfries

 

[PostOfficeTower]

Requesting to file an Amicus Brief regarding whether the Court has the lawful authority to try xEndevour considering his status as a king (see: The execution of Charles I & The English civil war)

 

[End]

 

[MJL]

View attachment 91694

Your honor, I would like to file a brief on whether the defendant can speak without being summoned by this court first. I have no specific economic interest in this case.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

View attachment 91694

Your Honour, I'd like to file an amicus brief on whether the alleged actions of the Defendant were "staff actions". I have no specific economic interest in the lawsuit.

 

[TheArtemis_]

View attachment 91694

Hark! Look who's talking. I advise you to hold yourself accountable first :3

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Your Honour, I'd like to file an amicus brief on whether the alleged actions of the Defendant were "staff actions". I have no specific economic interest in the lawsuit.

I'd further like to file an amicus brief on how rules interact with the law and the constitution.

 

[dearev]

View attachment 91694

Objection

OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your honors, the defendant has not been summoned yet. said statement has been made out of procedure and should be striken.

 

[torten]

Your Honor, I would like to file an Amicus Brief regarding Stafftatorship.

 

[hello1341]

Your Honour, I'd like to file an amicus brief on whether the alleged actions of the Defendant were "staff actions". I have no specific economic interest in the lawsuit.

 

[D0WN3D]

Your Honour, I'd like to file an amicus brief on whether the alleged actions of the Defendant were "staff actions". I have no specific economic interest in the lawsuit.

 

[DETECTIVHOLMES]

Your Honour, I'd like to file an amicus brief on whether the alleged actions of the Defendant were "staff actions". I have no specific economic interest in the lawsuit.

Objection

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Pursuant to Rule 6.7, "Any interested Attorney or duly registered Barrister may ask permission to post an amicus brief." The speaker is not legally qualified, and is therefore unable to submit an amicus brief, They have also not been summoned by the court, meaning that they have spoken out of line, the prosecution moves that their statment be struck from the record, and the speaker be held in contempt.

Spoiler: Evidence of Lack of Qualification

 

[EmeraldGuuy]

Your Honour, I'd like to file an amicus brief on whether the alleged actions of the Defendant were "staff actions". I have no specific economic interest in the lawsuit.

 

[IndeedDrinkWAter]

am I held in contempt of court

 

[Sofia2750]

am I held in contempt of court

That got abolished sorry Here

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

That got abolished sorry Here

Did anyone tell what a diva you are

 

[dearev]

I got deported gng

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

they banned me chat

 

[NoMoreUno]

contempt of court no longer exists. i can shitpost in forums

 

[NoMoreUno]

this is striked

 

[DETECTIVHOLMES]

they banned me chat

o7 Snow

 

[IndeedDrinkWAter]

I think you can still be punished just not held in contempt of court, and also because nobody is even bothering with punishing others

 

[IndeedDrinkWAter]

also hooray I became a barrister

 

[Smallfries]

also hooray I became a barrister

I think you can still be punished just not held in contempt of court, and also because nobody is even bothering with punishing others

o7 Snow

View attachment 91800

contempt of court no longer exists. i can shitpost in forums

they banned me chat

I got deported gng

Did anyone tell what a diva you are

That got abolished sorry Here

am I held in contempt of court

View attachment 91719
Hark! Look who's talking. I advise you to hold yourself accountable first :3

To be clear, I approved this. Any contempt charges arising from any of my DOJ employees doing anything should go straight to me. This applies to any shenanigans they may pull.

cc. @Smallfries

Court Order

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF REDMONT
ORDER - CONTEMPT OF COURT

Each of these messages were written out of turn, and have no bearing on the case at hand.

Though the Criminal Code Act ("CCA") was repealed on the 19th (two days ago) and therefore the first nine posts quoted are not *explicitly* criminal violations, we note with clarity that all law does not arise immediately and necessarily out of statute. Constitutionally recognized organs of state power, like this Court, have certain intrinsic powers to enable their function. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a requirement for any decision or course of action by a member of the judiciary to have explicit backing from the Congress assembled. While we do not have unlimited power, we surely have the intended structural framework to carry out the duties of justice and ensure the continuation of litigation.

Therefore, even without a statute on point, we may absolutely create for ourselves a common law contempt of court criminal charge to protect the rights and process of justice for the Commonwealth. See In re [2023] SCR 5 | [2025] SCR 4 (Smallfries4, J., concurring) (". . . even were there no statutory limits on appeals, we would consider creating some today.").

However, the Court still posses statutory tools to deal with those violations made post-repeal. The Judicial Standards Act ("JSA") grants the judiciary express rule-making authority for affairs within the courts. JSA Part VIII, § 5. This authority is "consistent with the principles enshrined in the Constitution's provision for judicial power," which aligns with what was discussed supra. Id. Further, these rules "shall have the force of law upon publication." Id. § 3.

The Court Rules and Procedures clearly state that any action which "disobeys a lawful order of the court" or "engag[es] in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice" is a contempt of court. Court R. & Proc., preamble § 4. Though true that this rule relied on the CCA for its initial hook, with that law gone there is no reason to think the rule is without force. The rule was made, clearly contemplating something called a "contempt of court" existing, and with no definition now falls to common law.

For all of the above violations quoted before the CCA was repealed (that is, the final two quoted) we find them guilty of contempt of court as prescribed by the CCA, and assign fifty penalty units each, following the law as it existed at the time of their violation. As to the rest, we hold each quoted post to be an action in contempt of this court, and fine them $5,000. All quoted posts shall have their content struck.​