Lawsuit: Pending Commonwealth of Redmont v. .SteelBirch6844 [2026] FCR 94

[OwnedBlock]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION

Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

.SteelBirch6844
Defendant

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

On 29th of September 2026, DoJ had received a report from an individual concerning the illicit substance plantation within the 7th floor of the basement portion of C612, owned by .SteelBirch6844 at the time. This constitutes Illicit Substance Production under the Criminal Code Act, as they were growing illicit substances on a plot registered to their name.

I. PARTIES​

1. Commonwealth of Redmont (Prosecution)
2. .SteelBirch6844 (Defendant)

​

II. FACTS​

1. On September 29th, 2026, the Defendant owned the C612 plot. (P-001)
2. Growing copium pods and morning glory plants were present within the basement of the C612 plot on September 29th, 2026. (P-001, P-002)
3. Copium pods and morning glory seeds are categorized as illicit substances under the Criminal Terminology Act.

​

III. CHARGES​

The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:

1. Illicit Substance Production​

An individual commits Illicit Substance Production under Criminal Code Act, Part VI, §5 when the person:

(a) Plants Buff Seeds
(b) Creates Illicit Substances
(c) Grows Illicit Substances on a plot registered to their name.

The test (c) is met, since the Defendant had been growing illicit substances (copium pods and morning glory seeds) on a plot registered to their name (C612).

​

IV. SENTENCING​

The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. A fine of 250 Penalty Units (equivalent to 30000$).
2. 60 minutes of imprisonment.

V. EVIDENCE​

Spoiler: P-001 - Screenshot showing the buff plantation, alongside realty record of C612 and timestamp

Spoiler: P-002 - Clearer image of the buff plantation

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 2nd day of October 2026.

 

[CreeperTD]

Writ of Summons

.SteelBirch6844 (@ValuedAtom) is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Commonwealth of Redmont v. .SteelBirch6844 [2026] FCR 94.

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.

 

[ValuedAtom]

I would like to request a public defender.

 

[CreeperTD]

I would like to request a public defender.

In line with the Public Defence Policy of the Judiciary, a public defender may be called if "the defendant requests a public defender and can reasonably justify compelling circumstances of hardship financial or otherwise."

Therefore, Defendant is ordered to submit a brief to the Court explaining compelling circumstances of hardship, financial or otherwise, with evidence attached, within 24 hours.

 

[OwnedBlock]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,
The defendant has failed to provide a response within the allowed time given to them by the court.
Given their lack of hardship, as evidenced by holding over 100k$ (and to my knowledge, some plots, including C612 - though I can't prove it well due to an issue with the realty plugin), I request for the defendant to be held in contempt and for the request for public defender to be denied.

Spoiler: Current balance record of .SteelBirch6844 alongside realty plugin error, with timestamp

 

[CreeperTD]

The court has decided to grant the Defendant an additional 48 hours to respond from the original deadline. Let this serve as their only warning that court deadlines must be met.

 

[OwnedBlock]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,
The defendant has, once again, failed to provide a response within the allowed time given to them by the court.
I renew my request for the defendant to be held in contempt and for the request for public defender to be denied.

 

[ValuedAtom]

Your honor, here is my balance at this time. I'm sorry to be late to provide this as it has been the Weekend and I've had relations to handle in real life and ingame otherwise.

 

[ameslap]

Your honor,

Ameslap is here to represent the Defendant.

In anticipation of your request for the Answer of Complaint, may I request an additional 48 hours on top of the deadline? I’m finalizing some IRL items over the weekend that has been taking up the majority of my time.

 

[CreeperTD]

Your honor,

Ameslap is here to represent the Defendant.

In anticipation of your request for the Answer of Complaint, may I request an additional 48 hours on top of the deadline? I’m finalizing some IRL items over the weekend that has been taking up the majority of my time.

View attachment 101767

Extension granted. Defense has 96 hours to enter into a plea.

 

[CreeperTD]

Defense only has around 24 hours more to enter into a plea. The Court warns the Defense Counselor that failure to meet court deadlines without an adequate given reason will result in being held in contempt.

 

[ameslap]

Plea

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
PLEA

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

V.

.Steelbirch6844
Defendant

I. ENTRY OF PLEA
1. On the count of Illicit Substance Production, NOT GUILTY

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 14th day of October 2026.

 

[CreeperTD]

The court shall now enter discovery, which will last for 5 days.

 

[ameslap]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Interrogatories

Pursuant to Court Rule 4.8, the Defendant submits the following initial interrogatories:

1. What evidence establishes that the plants depicted in exhibits P-001 and P-002 are illicit substances as identified in the complaint?

---

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Evidence Submission

The Defendant submits the following pieces of evidence.

Spoiler: D-001

Spoiler: D-002

Spoiler: D-003

---

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Witness List

The Defendant calls the following witness:

• The person who took the images submitted as P-001 and P-002. I respectfully do not know who that person is.

 

[OwnedBlock]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBMISSION OF EVIDENCE

Your Honor,
The Commonwealth would like to submit the following evidence into the record, per court rule 4.6:

Spoiler: P-003: Search and seizure warrant execution record (1/2)

Spoiler: P-004: Search and seizure warrant execution record (2/2)

 

[OwnedBlock]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY

The prosecution responds to the interrogatory as follows:

1. None explicit, but it's strongly implicit by details noted in complaint - location (basement rather than a display location like ground level decoration, etc.), layout (clear farm/plantation layout, rows of plants, rows of water between plants), the attempt to provide consistent lighting (glowstone blocks above some of the rows) and the look of the plants.

The prosecution would like to note, in a purely procedural way, that the documents submitted in discovery should support its standing.

 

[ameslap]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Interrogatories

Pursuant to Court Rule 4.8, the Defendant submits the following initial interrogatories:

2. Please identify each of the plants depicted in D-001, D-002, and D-003, and explain the basis for each identification.

---

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Compel

Your Honor,

The Defense moves to compel the Staff Team to review and produce logs from the location where the alleged illicit plants were found.

We would also request that discovery be extended until there is confirmation or denial of those logs.

Thank you,
Ameslap

 

[CreeperTD]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Compel

Your Honor,

The Defense moves to compel the Staff Team to review and produce logs from the location where the alleged illicit plants were found.

We would also request that discovery be extended until there is confirmation or denial of those logs.

Thank you,
Ameslap

What logs, and during what timeframe? In the Staff Legal Relations Guide, it is stated that:

Court orders should identify, where applicable:

• players involved;
• locations;
• relevant dates and times;
• items sought;
• purpose of the request.

The Court will not issue a subpoena to staff unless as much of the above information is given as possible.

 

[OwnedBlock]

The Commonwealth would like to object to interrogatory 2 on 2 separate grounds:

Objection

OBJECTION - RELEVANCE
Your Honor,

The prosecution does not see a link between identifying 3 plants not present in the initial complaint or its evidence submissions and this case.
The prosecutor, despite being the investigator assigned to this case, wasn't the one identifying the plants for the purposes of seizure.

The prosecution requests for the request for interrogatory 2 to be denied on these grounds.

Objection

OBJECTION - AMBIGUOUS
Your Honor,

Even if this court sees a link in regards to relevance, the request is ambiguous, as the neither the plant hitboxes nor a "targeted block" record is shown to enable determination in terms of whether a given graphic is of an entity or a block. This is a rather key factor of analysis of a standalone plant devoid of other context, as buff plants are implemented by a server plugin as entities.

The prosecution requests for the request for interrogatory 2 to be denied on these grounds.

 

[OwnedBlock]

I'd like to notify the court that I had made a brief clerical error in Objection 1's text and have corrected it, amending "identifying 3 plants present" to "identifying 3 plants not present".

 

[ameslap]

Your Honor, I am working on the response to the objections, but in the meantime, I have a new motion.

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Compel

The Defense requests the following items to be entered into discovery:
1. The initial report made to the Commonwealth concerning illicit substance plantation as stated in the complaint.
2. The transcript of the warrant used to search the property and seize any property.

Thank you,
Ameslap

 

[ameslap]

What logs, and during what timeframe? In the Staff Legal Relations Guide, it is stated that:

The Court will not issue a subpoena to staff unless as much of the above information is given as possible.

Given the complexity of establishing all of these items, we will withdraw or request that the Motion to Compel the Staff Team be denied.

 

[CreeperTD]

Given the complexity of establishing all of these items, we will withdraw or request that the Motion to Compel the Staff Team be denied.

The motion is denied then.

 

[OwnedBlock]

In the interest of not holding up this court any longer, as Commonwealth does not oppose the presentation of evidence in court, the Commonwealth will treat the defense's latest motion to compel as a court rule 4.7 discovery request:

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO 4.7 DISCOVERY REQUEST

To respond to the items within the motion to compel treated as 4.7 discovery request, the Commonwealth submits the following:

Spoiler: P-005: Initial report of matter

(noting the attached image is exactly P-002)

Spoiler: P-006: Search and seizure warrant

(noting item provided as evidence to warrant is exactly P-001 and item 1 in return to warrant is exactly P-003 and P-004 - the screenshot in item 2 is seen as extraneous, unless defense would like to specifically request it)

 

[ameslap]

The Commonwealth would like to object to interrogatory 2 on 2 separate grounds:

Objection

OBJECTION - RELEVANCE
Your Honor,

The prosecution does not see a link between identifying 3 plants not present in the initial complaint or its evidence submissions and this case.
The prosecutor, despite being the investigator assigned to this case, wasn't the one identifying the plants for the purposes of seizure.

The prosecution requests for the request for interrogatory 2 to be denied on these grounds.

Objection

OBJECTION - AMBIGUOUS
Your Honor,

Even if this court sees a link in regards to relevance, the request is ambiguous, as the neither the plant hitboxes nor a "targeted block" record is shown to enable determination in terms of whether a given graphic is of an entity or a block. This is a rather key factor of analysis of a standalone plant devoid of other context, as buff plants are implemented by a server plugin as entities.

The prosecution requests for the request for interrogatory 2 to be denied on these grounds.

The Commonwealth would like to object to interrogatory 2 on 2 separate grounds:

Objection

OBJECTION - RELEVANCE
Your Honor,

The prosecution does not see a link between identifying 3 plants not present in the initial complaint or its evidence submissions and this case.
The prosecutor, despite being the investigator assigned to this case, wasn't the one identifying the plants for the purposes of seizure.

The prosecution requests for the request for interrogatory 2 to be denied on these grounds.

Objection

OBJECTION - AMBIGUOUS
Your Honor,

Even if this court sees a link in regards to relevance, the request is ambiguous, as the neither the plant hitboxes nor a "targeted block" record is shown to enable determination in terms of whether a given graphic is of an entity or a block. This is a rather key factor of analysis of a standalone plant devoid of other context, as buff plants are implemented by a server plugin as entities.

The prosecution requests for the request for interrogatory 2 to be denied on these grounds.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Response
Your Honor, we oppose these objections to Interrogatory 2.

I. RELEVANCE
The Commonwealth cannot have its cake and eat it too.

In response to Interrogatory 1, the Commonwealth stated that its evidence identifying the alleged illicit substances was implicit in their appearance, location, and surrounding growing conditions.

Now, when asked to identify plants presented by the defense under similar circumstances, the Commonwealth argues that such identification is irrelevant.

The identification of the alleged illicit substances is a central element of the offense. The Defense's exhibits directly challenge the reliability of the method that the Commonwealth relies on.

The fact that the prosecutor did not personally identify the plants does not remove the Commonwealth's responsibility to establish the offense.

II. AMBIGUITY
The Commonwealth is arguing that plants cannot be reliably identified without additional information, such as hitboxes or targeted block records, because illicit plants are implemented as plugin entities.

This is precisely the issue raised by the Defense. If the Commonwealth maintains that photographs alone cannot reliably distinguish ordinary plants from illicit substances, it must explain how the plants depicted in P-001 and P-002 were identified.

The Commonwealth cannot argue that visual identification is good enough for its own evidence but not when examining the Defense's evidence.

III. CONCLUSION
The Defense maintains that Interrogatory 2 is relevant and clear. If the Commonwealth cannot identify the plants from the photographs, it can state so.

We ask that you overrule the objections.

Thank you,
Ameslap

---

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Strike Evidence

Your Honor,
The Defense moves to strike evidence obtained through the seizure of property at C612 on the grounds that the seizure exceeded the statutory authority granted under a Search Warrant.

I. STATUTORY AUTHORITY
Part IV, Section 2(1) of the Judicial Standards Act authorizes officers to enter private property and inspect assets for the purpose of locating evidence or contraband.

Notably, the statute does not authorize the seizure of property in a Search Warrant.

The Act establishes Asset Seizure Warrants under Part IV, Section 3, demonstrating that Congress distinguished between the authority to search and the authority to seize.

Had Congress intended Search Warrants to authorize seizures, it could have provided for such authority.

II. THE WARRANT ISSUED
The newly disclosed warrant application identifies the requested warrant type as a Search Warrant. Although the investigator requested permission to seize substances, the Court approved the application as a Search Warrant.

The Defense maintains that requesting additional powers within an application does not automatically confer statutory authority beyond that granted by the applicable warrant provisions.

A Search Warrant cannot simply become an Asset Seizure Warrant because the applicant requests seizure within its description.

III. THE SEIZURE
The warrant return confirms that investigators, with staff assistance, seized Copium Seeds, Morning Glory Seeds, Copium Pods, and Coco Leaves from C612.

However, the Commonwealth has not identified a separate statutory authority permitting those seizures.

Additionally, the Commonwealth acknowledged in its response to Interrogatory 1 that it possessed no explicit evidence identifying the alleged illicit substances.

The Commonwealth subsequently argued that distinguishing ordinary plants from illicit may require information not visible in photographs.

This raises additional concerns regarding the factual basis for the seizure.

IV. CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS
Part V, Section 35(15) of the Constitution protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. A lawful search does not necessarily authorize the confiscation of property.

The distinction between these powers must be respected, particularly when the Commonwealth seeks to introduce seized property as evidence in a criminal prosecution.

Thank you,
Ameslap

 

[ameslap]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Updated Witness List

The Defense edits its witness list from the prior submission:

The Defendant calls the following witness:

• The person who took the images submitted as P-001 and P-002. I respectfully do not know who that person is.

To now be:
1. zPokebr_

 

[OwnedBlock]

Your Honor,

The Commonwealth does not object to the response to the first objection.
May the Commonwealth be permitted to respond to to the response to the second objection?

An objection to the motion to strike is forthcoming.

 

[CreeperTD]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Response
Your Honor, we oppose these objections to Interrogatory 2.

I. RELEVANCE
The Commonwealth cannot have its cake and eat it too.

In response to Interrogatory 1, the Commonwealth stated that its evidence identifying the alleged illicit substances was implicit in their appearance, location, and surrounding growing conditions.

Now, when asked to identify plants presented by the defense under similar circumstances, the Commonwealth argues that such identification is irrelevant.

The identification of the alleged illicit substances is a central element of the offense. The Defense's exhibits directly challenge the reliability of the method that the Commonwealth relies on.

The fact that the prosecutor did not personally identify the plants does not remove the Commonwealth's responsibility to establish the offense.

II. AMBIGUITY
The Commonwealth is arguing that plants cannot be reliably identified without additional information, such as hitboxes or targeted block records, because illicit plants are implemented as plugin entities.

This is precisely the issue raised by the Defense. If the Commonwealth maintains that photographs alone cannot reliably distinguish ordinary plants from illicit substances, it must explain how the plants depicted in P-001 and P-002 were identified.

The Commonwealth cannot argue that visual identification is good enough for its own evidence but not when examining the Defense's evidence.

III. CONCLUSION
The Defense maintains that Interrogatory 2 is relevant and clear. If the Commonwealth cannot identify the plants from the photographs, it can state so.

We ask that you overrule the objections.

Thank you,
Ameslap

---

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Strike Evidence

Your Honor,
The Defense moves to strike evidence obtained through the seizure of property at C612 on the grounds that the seizure exceeded the statutory authority granted under a Search Warrant.

I. STATUTORY AUTHORITY
Part IV, Section 2(1) of the Judicial Standards Act authorizes officers to enter private property and inspect assets for the purpose of locating evidence or contraband.

Notably, the statute does not authorize the seizure of property in a Search Warrant.

The Act establishes Asset Seizure Warrants under Part IV, Section 3, demonstrating that Congress distinguished between the authority to search and the authority to seize.

Had Congress intended Search Warrants to authorize seizures, it could have provided for such authority.

II. THE WARRANT ISSUED
The newly disclosed warrant application identifies the requested warrant type as a Search Warrant. Although the investigator requested permission to seize substances, the Court approved the application as a Search Warrant.

The Defense maintains that requesting additional powers within an application does not automatically confer statutory authority beyond that granted by the applicable warrant provisions.

A Search Warrant cannot simply become an Asset Seizure Warrant because the applicant requests seizure within its description.

III. THE SEIZURE
The warrant return confirms that investigators, with staff assistance, seized Copium Seeds, Morning Glory Seeds, Copium Pods, and Coco Leaves from C612.

However, the Commonwealth has not identified a separate statutory authority permitting those seizures.

Additionally, the Commonwealth acknowledged in its response to Interrogatory 1 that it possessed no explicit evidence identifying the alleged illicit substances.

The Commonwealth subsequently argued that distinguishing ordinary plants from illicit may require information not visible in photographs.

This raises additional concerns regarding the factual basis for the seizure.

IV. CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS
Part V, Section 35(15) of the Constitution protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. A lawful search does not necessarily authorize the confiscation of property.

The distinction between these powers must be respected, particularly when the Commonwealth seeks to introduce seized property as evidence in a criminal prosecution.

Thank you,
Ameslap

This motion is denied. The Judicial Standards Act is silent on the seizing of contraband, and it is stated that Asset Seizure warrants are only for the seizure of Assets for the paying of outstanding fines or the fulfillment of court orders. The Judiciary provides a guide to the DHS on warrants, which contains the following in its definition of various warrant types:

Search Warrant / Search Records
To search for evidence and or seize contraband

As can be seen, an official Court Guide/Policy permits the use of search warrants to seize contraband, and warrants of that type are used for that purpose regularly. The Court sees no reason to change that at this time.

 

[CreeperTD]

Your Honor,

The Commonwealth does not object to the response to the first objection.
May the Commonwealth be permitted to respond to to the response to the second objection?

An objection to the motion to strike is forthcoming.

Parties are not permitted to respond to responses to objections.

 

[OwnedBlock]

Duly noted, Your Honor. Since the motion to strike has been denied, the objection to it would be moot, as a result, it will not be posted.

 

[CreeperTD]

Objection

OBJECTION - RELEVANCE
Your Honor,

The prosecution does not see a link between identifying 3 plants not present in the initial complaint or its evidence submissions and this case.
The prosecutor, despite being the investigator assigned to this case, wasn't the one identifying the plants for the purposes of seizure.

The prosecution requests for the request for interrogatory 2 to be denied on these grounds.

Objection overruled. Although the Prosecution may question the value of what argument might result from the answer to the interrogatories, the question itself is relevant to the case. What value is placed upon such a response shall be determined at verdict once the response has been given.

The Court will rule on the other objection at another time.

 

[ameslap]

This motion is denied. The Judicial Standards Act is silent on the seizing of contraband, and it is stated that Asset Seizure warrants are only for the seizure of Assets for the paying of outstanding fines or the fulfillment of court orders. The Judiciary provides a guide to the DHS on warrants, which contains the following in its definition of various warrant types:

As can be seen, an official Court Guide/Policy permits the use of search warrants to seize contraband, and warrants of that type are used for that purpose regularly. The Court sees no reason to change that at this time.

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion for Reconsideration

I. STATUTORY AUTHORITY
Part IV, Section 2(1) of the JSA authorizes officers to enter private property and inspect assets for the purpose of locating evidence.

It does not expressly authorize the seizure of property.

The Court's ruling acknowledges this but relies on a Judiciary guide permitting seizures under Search Warrants, which, by all accounts to the Defense, is not available to the public.

The Defense questions whether administrative guidance can grant powers that Congress has not expressly authorized.

II. TRADITION DOES NOT ESTABLISH LEGALITY
The Court further states that Search Warrants have regularly been used to seize contraband and sees no reason to change that practice.

The existence of an established tradition or practice does not establish its legality.

Simply because something has historically been permitted or used does not mean it was legally authorized in the first place.

The Judiciary's responsibility is to interpret and uphold the law, not to justify a practice solely because it has become tradition.

III. SEPARATION OF AUTHORITY
The JSA distinguishes between Search Warrants and Asset Seizure Warrants, establishing different purposes and powers for each. While the Judiciary can establish procedural guidance, that guidance cannot independently expand the substantive authority granted by the law.

Thank you,
Ameslap

 

[ameslap]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
More Interrogatories!

The Defense submits the following interrogatories:

3. Prior to filing the complaint, did the Commonwealth establish whether the alleged illicit substances were planted before or after the Defendant acquired C612 on September 27, 2026?

4. Prior to filing the complaint, did investigators obtain any server records (block placement, interaction records, etc.) connecting the Defendant to the charge?

 

[CreeperTD]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion for Reconsideration

I. STATUTORY AUTHORITY
Part IV, Section 2(1) of the JSA authorizes officers to enter private property and inspect assets for the purpose of locating evidence.

It does not expressly authorize the seizure of property.

The Court's ruling acknowledges this but relies on a Judiciary guide permitting seizures under Search Warrants, which, by all accounts to the Defense, is not available to the public.

The Defense questions whether administrative guidance can grant powers that Congress has not expressly authorized.

II. TRADITION DOES NOT ESTABLISH LEGALITY
The Court further states that Search Warrants have regularly been used to seize contraband and sees no reason to change that practice.

The existence of an established tradition or practice does not establish its legality.

Simply because something has historically been permitted or used does not mean it was legally authorized in the first place.

The Judiciary's responsibility is to interpret and uphold the law, not to justify a practice solely because it has become tradition.

III. SEPARATION OF AUTHORITY
The JSA distinguishes between Search Warrants and Asset Seizure Warrants, establishing different purposes and powers for each. While the Judiciary can establish procedural guidance, that guidance cannot independently expand the substantive authority granted by the law.

Thank you,
Ameslap

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RULING ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Defense claims that the Judicial Standards Act does not give the government the authority to seize "property," and that therefore the action approved by the Search Warrant authorized by the Federal Court was unlawful. The Court disagrees.

There is not any one particular statue, legal theory, or authority upon which the Court relies, but rather multiple all at the same time. The Court shall list each in turn.

I. The Judicial Standards Act delegates rulemaking authority to the Courts

JSA Part VIII § 5 provides for the delegation of authority from Congress to the Judiciary "to create and implement Court Rules governing the procedures and administration of all courts within the Commonwealth." The section provides an extensive list of what this extends to, but notes that "hese rules may cover matters such as, but are not limited to" those matters. Subsection (3) of that Section states that " Court Rules shall have the force of law upon publication, and any challenge to a Rule's validity must be brought before the Supreme Court."

It can be reasoned, therefore, that the Judiciary has the power to further define the scope and purpose of warrants as is reasonable within existing statute and judicial precedent. Warrants are granted by the Federal Court, the warrant authority, and the Judicial Standards Act states plainly that "A court may hear a warrant application to authorise the Commonwealth to take an action that would otherwise be unconstitutional" (JSA Part IV § 1(1)). It makes sense that the Courts would be able to create reasonable standards and guidelines about requirements, formatting, and the extent of warrants, and the JSA grants the Judge who reviews Warrants broad authority over them beyond establishing that the Standard of Proof is "probable cause" for warrant applications (JSA Part II § 3(c)).

II. THE CRIMINAL CODE ACT AUTHORIZES SEIZURE OF CONTRABAND FOR SPECIFIC OFFENSES

The Criminal Code Act contains provisions for multiple Criminal Offenses in which the penalty for the offense is "Seizure of illicit items," including Minor Illicit Substance Possession, Major Illicit Substance Possession, Illicit Substance Trafficking, and Illicit Substance Production (CCA Part VI § 1-3; 5). Clearly, statute exists which authorizes the seizure of Contraband once it is discovered, especially if an individual is being charged with a Summary Offense. It follows, therefore, that Warrants in general are able to be used to seize Contraband. This explains why the Federal Court's Guide to Requesting Warrants (not public) provides that search warrants may be used "To search for evidence and or seize contraband," as that falls within the legal authority of the Department of Homeland Security to carry out.

III. TO RULE THAT THE ACTION IS UNLAWFUL WOULD BE FOLLY

It is obvious to the Court that the Department of Homeland and the Department of Justice are meant to be able to seize illegal contraband with authorization from an approved warrant. The Executive Standards Act in Section 7 charges the Department of Homeland Security with:

Maintaining the peace and good order of the nation, through lawfully exercising its power equally to enforce the laws of the Commonwealth of Redmont... [and] Administration of a Federal impound and providing security to government officials and events.

Further, in Section 8 of that same act the Department of Justice is charged with "Defending the national legal interest... [and] Investigating and prosecuting on behalf of the Federal Government." The Court believes that barring both departments from seizing contraband would be an absurd and unreasonable interpretation of the Judicial Standards Act. As stated earlier in this decision, the CCA provided for penalties that included the seizure of illicit items. The Court disagrees with Defense's claim that Congress did not intend to grant this authority to Search Warrants, and disagrees that the Court cannot rule otherwise.

If the Court were to rule that the execution of this warrant was unlawful, it would tear down the existing system of enforcement of all drug and firearm defenses by preventing the Departments from enforcing the statute as it is now. In the opinion of the court, harm that would occur as a result of that decision outweighs the rights asserted by the Defense against "unreasonable search or seizure." Furthermore, it does not find that seizure of illicit substances or other items which Congress deem to be illegal is "unreasonable," there is not only extensive precedent to support such an action, but oftentimes the CCA requires it. The assertion that "tradition does not establish legality" fails to be persuasive when that "tradition" is a constant pattern of judicial rulings which have not been countered by another persuasive argument. It is the responsibility of the Judiciary to interpret the law when it is silent on a matter; this is how the Court interprets the law in this matter. This Motion to Reconsider is denied.

So Ordered,
Judge CreeperTD

 

[CreeperTD]

Objection

OBJECTION - AMBIGUOUS
Your Honor,

Even if this court sees a link in regards to relevance, the request is ambiguous, as the neither the plant hitboxes nor a "targeted block" record is shown to enable determination in terms of whether a given graphic is of an entity or a block. This is a rather key factor of analysis of a standalone plant devoid of other context, as buff plants are implemented by a server plugin as entities.

The prosecution requests for the request for interrogatory 2 to be denied on these grounds.

Objection sustained in part. The Court believes the interrogatory shall be best directed towards a witness called for by the Defense rather than being directed towards the Prosecution, such as towards zPokebr_ or the individual who requested the warrant, as depicted in P-006. The interrogatory is hereby struck.