Lawsuit: Pending Commonwealth of Redmont v. wttn2c [2026] DCR 80

Mask3D_WOLF

Mask3D_WOLF

His Holiness Pope Benetukt XVII
Public Defender
Supporter
Oakridge Resident
Public Affairs Department
Justice Department
Change Maker Popular in the Polls Legal Eagle Statesman
Mask3D_WOLF
Mask3D_WOLF
Public Defender
Joined
May 14, 2021
Messages
994
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION


The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

wttn2c
Defendant

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

PROSECUTING AUTHORITY REPORT
On February 8th, 2026 the Department of Homeland Security was notified of a Bank Robbery via the bank alarms going off. Captain HellsideBurnton and Lieutenant Rookieblue14 of the Department of Homeland Security responded to the alarm. Upon arrival, Captain HellsideBurnton and Lieutenant Rookieblue14 were shot and killed by an unknown player inside the Bank Vault. During subsequent responses, Lieutenant Rookieblue14 was able to detain the suspect inside the vault, revealing their identity to be wttn2c. Captain HellsideBurnton was killed eleven times while attempting to detain wttn2c, while Lieutenant Rookieblue14 was killed one time.


I. PARTIES
1. The Commonwealth of Redmont
2. Mask3D_WOLF - Prosecution
3. wttn2c - Defendant
4. Fmr. Captain HellsideBurnton - Victim
5. Fmr. Lieutenant Rookieblue14 - Victim

II. FACTS
1. On February 8, 2026, the bank alarms sounded, notifying the Department of Homeland Security that the bank was being robbed
2. Rookieblue14 and HellsideBurnton responded to the robbery
3. While trying to get into the bank vault to arrest the robber inside, Rookieblue14 and HellsideBurnton were repeatedly killed by the player inside
4. When the player inside was detained, they were revealed to be wttn2c

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. One charge of Obstruction of Justice for willfully impeding the process of justice by harming an officer attempting to conduct an arrest

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. Jail time of 60 minutes
2. Fine of 3 penalty units

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 seventh day of June 2026

Evidence:
 

Writ of Summons


@wttn2c is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Commonwealth of Redmont v wttn2c [2026] DCR 80

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.

 
ko531 said:
Since the defendant failed to appear a Public Defender will be assigned.
Click to expand...
The Public Defender Program is currently representing 11 cases with only 4 Public Defenders. Of those, I am personally representing 6 of the cases. The PD who I assigned to this case is not responding to my messages.

I would ask the case be stayed until the Defendant can reasonably be given competent counsel.

Edit: It looks like they reacted to my message with a Thumbs Up emoji. Hopefully they will appear.
 

Plea


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
PLEA

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

wttn2c
Defendant


I. ENTRY OF PLEA
1. Defendant pleads Not Guilty to one charge of of Obstruction of Justice.

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 first day of July 2026

 

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honor,

The Defendant seeks dismissal of the first charge under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim) and Rule 5.10 (Statute of Limitations). Court R. & Proc, Rule 5.5; id. at Rule 5.10. In support thereof the Defendant respectfully alleges:

The statute of limitations for the charge brought by the prosecution in this case is four months. See Criminal Code Act Part I Section 7.a. The Prosecution claims that the alleged events occured on February 8th of 2026 but has not provided any evidence at all to support this claim. Without any evidence supporting the claim at all, it can not possibly be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged events occurred on February 8th. As such, the prosecution has not and will not be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged events occurred within the four months before the initial filing made in this proceeding and thus that this case falls within the statute of limitations. This means that there is not enough evidence to support the criminal charge in any circumstance and therefore the Defendant respectfully requests it be dismissed.

Thank you.

 
gribble19 said:

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honor,

The Defendant seeks dismissal of the first charge under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim) and Rule 5.10 (Statute of Limitations). Court R. & Proc, Rule 5.5; id. at Rule 5.10. In support thereof the Defendant respectfully alleges:

The statute of limitations for the charge brought by the prosecution in this case is four months. See Criminal Code Act Part I Section 7.a. The Prosecution claims that the alleged events occured on February 8th of 2026 but has not provided any evidence at all to support this claim. Without any evidence supporting the claim at all, it can not possibly be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged events occurred on February 8th. As such, the prosecution has not and will not be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged events occurred within the four months before the initial filing made in this proceeding and thus that this case falls within the statute of limitations. This means that there is not enough evidence to support the criminal charge in any circumstance and therefore the Defendant respectfully requests it be dismissed.

Thank you.

Click to expand...

Objection


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

Court Rules and Procedures specify that Motions to Dismiss must be filed prior to the beginning of opening statements (Rule 5.2). As opening statements have begun, the Motion to Dismiss for violation of Rule 5.10 has been filed too late and should therefore be struck.



Edited as declared in this post to comply with Court Rules and Procedures.
 
Last edited:
Mask3D_WOLF said:

Objection


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

Court Rules and Procedures specify that Motions to Dismiss must be filed prior to the beginning of opening statements (Rule 5.2). As opening statements have begun, the Motion to Dismiss for violation of Rule 5.10 has been filed too late and should therefore be struck.

Click to expand...

Objection


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

Your Honor,

It is required to hyperlink to the correct forum post when using a source the first time this source is mentioned in a filing. Court R. & Proc, Rule 1.10.
The objection filed by the Prosecution uses the Court Rules and Procedures as a source but does not hyperlink to the correct forum post the first time it is mentioned within the filing. As such, the filing was not made in line with the Court Rules and Procedures and the Defendant respectfully requests this filing be struck and that the Prosecution be warned to follow the Court Rules and Procedures from here on out or be held in contempt of court.

Thank you.

 
gribble19 said:

Objection


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

Your Honor,

It is required to hyperlink to the correct forum post when using a source the first time this source is mentioned in a filing. Court R. & Proc, Rule 1.10.
The objection filed by the Prosecution uses the Court Rules and Procedures as a source but does not hyperlink to the correct forum post the first time it is mentioned within the filing. As such, the filing was not made in line with the Court Rules and Procedures and the Defendant respectfully requests this filing be struck and that the Prosecution be warned to follow the Court Rules and Procedures from here on out or be held in contempt of court.

Thank you.

Click to expand...
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

The prosecution takes this point well and has amended the original objection to include a hyperlink to the court's rules and procedures.
 

Opening Statement


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

This is an open-and-shut case. The evidence presented shows the defendant, wttn2c, harming police officers who were attempting to conduct an arrest for bank robbery. The criteria being used in this case for an offense of Obstruction of Justice, as seen in the Criminal Code Act, is, "willfully interfer[ing] with the process of justice by influencing a witness, potential witness, or law enforcement officer". From the evidence, it is clear that the defendant willfully interfered with the process of justice (as seen in their interference with a lawful arrest) by harming a law enforcement officer. This meets the criteria laid out, constituting the offense charged. The prosecution will continue to strengthen this case in order to bring the defendant, wttn2c, to justice.

Thank you.

 
gribble19 said:

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honor,

The Defendant seeks dismissal of the first charge under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim) and Rule 5.10 (Statute of Limitations). Court R. & Proc, Rule 5.5; id. at Rule 5.10. In support thereof the Defendant respectfully alleges:

The statute of limitations for the charge brought by the prosecution in this case is four months. See Criminal Code Act Part I Section 7.a. The Prosecution claims that the alleged events occured on February 8th of 2026 but has not provided any evidence at all to support this claim. Without any evidence supporting the claim at all, it can not possibly be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged events occurred on February 8th. As such, the prosecution has not and will not be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged events occurred within the four months before the initial filing made in this proceeding and thus that this case falls within the statute of limitations. This means that there is not enough evidence to support the criminal charge in any circumstance and therefore the Defendant respectfully requests it be dismissed.

Thank you.

Click to expand...
If not struck for the violation listed in the prosecution's objection, may we respond to the Motion to Dismiss?
 
Mask3D_WOLF said:

Objection


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

Court Rules and Procedures specify that Motions to Dismiss must be filed prior to the beginning of opening statements (Rule 5.2). As opening statements have begun, the Motion to Dismiss for violation of Rule 5.10 has been filed too late and should therefore be struck.



Edited as declared in this post to comply with Court Rules and Procedures.
Click to expand...
Overruled.

While yes, their motion to dismiss based on Rule 5.10 is late, Rule 5.5 MTDs are explicitly allowed untill witness testimony under rule 5.2. I am not striking the entire MTD when there is validity in it.

gribble19 said:

Objection


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

Your Honor,

It is required to hyperlink to the correct forum post when using a source the first time this source is mentioned in a filing. Court R. & Proc, Rule 1.10.
The objection filed by the Prosecution uses the Court Rules and Procedures as a source but does not hyperlink to the correct forum post the first time it is mentioned within the filing. As such, the filing was not made in line with the Court Rules and Procedures and the Defendant respectfully requests this filing be struck and that the Prosecution be warned to follow the Court Rules and Procedures from here on out or be held in contempt of court.

Thank you.

Click to expand...
Sustained.

They have amended their objection to fix this issue. Consider this the commonwealth's warning to follow the court rules.

Mask3D_WOLF said:
If not struck for the violation listed in the prosecution's objection, may we respond to the Motion to Dismiss?
Click to expand...
You have an automatic 48 hours to respond according to the FCR rules.
 
ko531 said:
Overruled.

While yes, their motion to dismiss based on Rule 5.10 is late, Rule 5.5 MTDs are explicitly allowed untill witness testimony under rule 5.2. I am not striking the entire MTD when there is validity in it.


Sustained.

They have amended their objection to fix this issue. Consider this the commonwealth's warning to follow the court rules.


You have an automatic 48 hours to respond according to the FCR rules.
Click to expand...
My apologies, Your Honor, but I was under the impression that we would be proceeding under DCR rules. Just for clarification, will we be observing FCR rules in this case?
 
Mask3D_WOLF said:
My apologies, Your Honor, but I was under the impression that we would be proceeding under DCR rules. Just for clarification, will we be observing FCR rules in this case?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I blanked when writing this. Forgot what court we are in. You may have 48 hours to respond
 
gribble19 said:

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honor,

The Defendant seeks dismissal of the first charge under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim) and Rule 5.10 (Statute of Limitations). Court R. & Proc, Rule 5.5; id. at Rule 5.10. In support thereof the Defendant respectfully alleges:

The statute of limitations for the charge brought by the prosecution in this case is four months. See Criminal Code Act Part I Section 7.a. The Prosecution claims that the alleged events occured on February 8th of 2026 but has not provided any evidence at all to support this claim. Without any evidence supporting the claim at all, it can not possibly be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged events occurred on February 8th. As such, the prosecution has not and will not be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged events occurred within the four months before the initial filing made in this proceeding and thus that this case falls within the statute of limitations. This means that there is not enough evidence to support the criminal charge in any circumstance and therefore the Defendant respectfully requests it be dismissed.

Thank you.

Click to expand...
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honor,

The Prosecution claims that the events in this case occurred on February 8, 2026, and has indeed provided evidence that supports this claim. Prosecution's only exhibit (which I will refer to as Exhibit A from this point forward) shows at timestamp 1:53 that all wanted points active during the incident were created on February 8, 2026. This could not be possible unless the incident occurred on February 8, 2026, or later. Either way, this would satisfy the four-month statute of limitations. Additionally, timestamp 2:11 shows a broadcast stating that the Players' Choice Awards had begun. The most recent Players' Choice Awards took place on February 8, 2026 (link to announcement), consistent with the evidence at timestamp 1:53. Finally, the video was published on February 8, 2026. The incident couldn't have occurred before February 8, 2026 (wanted points), nor could it have occurred later (video publication date). It occurred exactly on that date (Players' Choice Awards).

February 8, 2026 is within four months of the filing date of June 7, 2026. The prosecution has therefore filed the case within four months of the offense, within the statute of limitations.

Thank you.

EDIT 11:10 PM ET: Please note that I have included the announcement as a citation, not in order to submit it into evidence.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top