Lawsuit: Pending Commonwealth of Redmont v. AtomicRedstoner [2026] FCR 6

[Superwoops]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION



The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

AtomicRedstoner
Defendant



COMPLAINT
The Prosecution alleges criminal actions committed by the Defendant as follows:
The Defendant, on four separate occasions, trafficked Weapons of Mass Destruction to third parties, amounting to four distinct counts of trafficking of WMDs.

I. PARTIES
1. Commonwealth of Redmont (Prosecution)
2. AtomicRedstoner (Defendant)

II. FACTS

1. On November 29th, the Defendant posted an in-game ad that read "Want a nuclear weapon then msg me!" (P-007)
2. At 2:58 pm EST, Superwoops contacted the Defendant, who agreed to meet him at the Zoo to sell him WMDs. (P-001)
3. Upon arriving at the Zoo, the Defendant prompted Superwoops to pay him. (P-013)
4. After making the payment at 3:17 pm EST, the Defendant dropped a Fatman, which had a mininuke loaded in it. (P-010, P-013)
5. At 4:10 pm EST, Superwoops contacted the Defendant again, who agreed to meet him at the Zoo again. (P-002)
6. Superwoops paid $3,800, at which time the Defendant dropped 9 mininukes, which Superwoops picked up. (P-008, P-009, P-011)
7. At 4:40 pm EST, Superwoops once again contacted the Defendant, offering a set of netherite armour in exchange for more WMDs. (P-003)
8. They met once more, at which time the Defendant dropped 3 more mininukes, which Superwoops picked up. (P-003)
9. At 4:51 pm EST, the Defendant dropped an additional 64 WMDs at spawn. (P-009)
10. Those 64 WMDs were picked up by Giibbless at spawn. (P-012)
11. The Defendant was in full knowledge that his actions were illegal. (P-004, P-005, P-007)​

III. CHARGES

The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. One Count of Weapon of Mass Destruction Trafficking for the sale of 2 WMDs to Superwoops, as distribution of these items is illegal under Criminal Code Act Part VI, §8.
2. One Count of Weapon of Mass Destruction Trafficking for the sale of 9 WMDs to Superwoops, as distribution of these items is illegal under Criminal Code Act Part VI, §8.
3. One Count of Weapon of Mass Destruction Trafficking for the sale of 3 WMDs to Superwoops, as distribution of these items is illegal under Criminal Code Act Part VI, §8.
4. One Count of Weapon of Mass Destruction Trafficking for the distribution of 64 WMDs to Giibbless, as distribution of these items is illegal under Criminal Code Act Part VI, §8.​

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

1. For Count 1, the Prosecution recommends a fine of 50 Penalty Units and imprisonment for 30 minutes considering the aggravating factor of mens rea.
2. For Count 2, the Prosecution recommends a fine of 50 Penalty Units and imprisonment for 30 minutes considering the aggravating factor of mens rea and repeated disregard for the law.
3. For Count 3, the Prosecution recommends a fine of 50 Penalty Units and imprisonment for 30 minutes considering the aggravating factor of mens rea and repeated disregard for the law.
4. For Count 4, the Prosecution recommends the maximum punishment of a fine of 100 Penalty Units and 60 minutes imprisonment considering the aggravating factor of mens rea and repeated disregard for the law.​

V. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: P-004

Spoiler: P-005

Spoiler: P-006

Spoiler: P-007

Spoiler: P-008

Spoiler: P-009

Spoiler: P-010

Spoiler: P-011

Spoiler: P-012

Spoiler: P-013

VI. WITNESSES

1. Superwoops - While I am counsel in this case, I will be substituted by secondary counsel when delivering witness testimony as permitted in Lawsuit: In Session - Vendeka Inc. and Pepecuu v. Department of Commerce [2025] FCR 107.

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 29th day of January, 2026​

 

[Muggy21]

Writ of Summons

@Atomicredstoner, is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Commonwealth of Redmont v. AtomicRedstoner [2026] FCR 6

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.

 

[Muggy21]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order to Show Cause - Sua Sponte Dismissal of Charges 1-3


Upon review of the record, the Court has identified substantial concerns regarding the legal sufficiency of Counts 1 through 3. The Court hereby orders the Prosecution to show cause why these counts should not be dismissed.

Summary of Complaint

The Prosecution alleges that the Defendant committed four separate acts of WMD Trafficking. Counts 1 through 3 involve transactions between the Defendant and an individual identified as Superwoops. Count 4 involves the distribution of 64 WMDs to an individual identified as Giibbless at spawn. The Court observes that the Complaint and supporting evidence indicate that Superwoops initiated contact with the Defendant in response to a public advertisement, arranged each meeting, tendered payment or consideration, and personally received the items in question on three occasions.

Points of Concern

A. Government Participation in the Completed Offense
The trafficking statute under Criminal Code Act Part VI, Section 8 criminalizes the distribution of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Each of the transactions underlying Counts 1 through 3 required a recipient to accept delivery of the items. If Superwoops was acting in a law enforcement capacity or at the direction of the Department of Justice, then the Government itself served as the necessary counterparty to each transaction. The Court questions whether a completed trafficking offense can be sustained where the sole recipient was an agent of the prosecuting authority. The Prosecution shall address whether the Government can simultaneously facilitate the completion of an offense and prosecute the Defendant for that completed offense.


B. Entrapment Concerns Under Section 8(2)
The Court notes that while the Defendant publicly advertised his willingness to distribute WMDs, the actual completed transactions were carried out only because a law enforcement operative or cooperator responded to that advertisement, arranged meetings, and provided payment. The Prosecution shall address whether the methods employed by Superwoops, including repeated return purchases across three separate transactions within a short time span, may constitute inducement or encouragement within the meaning of Section 8(2)(b) of the Criminal Code Act. Essentially, the Prosecution shall address whether these methods created a substantial risk that the offense of trafficking, as distinct from conspiracy or attempted distribution, would be committed by persons other than those already ready to commit it.


​

Obligations of the Federal Court System

Judicial power is vested in the courts, whose role is to interpret the law as written by the legislature and administered by the Executive. Section 32(9) of the Constitution further guarantees every citizen the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judicial Officer. Impartiality does not require passivity. Rather, it requires the Court to ensure that the proceedings before it are legally sound and that no party, including the Government, is permitted to advance charges that may be procedurally or substantively deficient. The Court's issuance of an Order to Show Cause does not represent advocacy on behalf of the Defendant; it represents the Court fulfilling its constitutional duty to safeguard the integrity of the judicial process and to ensure that the law is applied correctly and uniformly to all parties, including the prosecuting authority itself.


Thus, @Superwoops, you (and the DoJ) are ordered to show cause as to why Charges 1-3 should not be dismissed with prejudiced. The Government's response is due in 72 Hours. All other deadlines tolled.


So ordered,
Judge Mug

 

[AmityBlamity]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order to Show Cause - Sua Sponte Dismissal of Charges 1-3


Upon review of the record, the Court has identified substantial concerns regarding the legal sufficiency of Counts 1 through 3. The Court hereby orders the Prosecution to show cause why these counts should not be dismissed.

Summary of Complaint

The Prosecution alleges that the Defendant committed four separate acts of WMD Trafficking. Counts 1 through 3 involve transactions between the Defendant and an individual identified as Superwoops. Count 4 involves the distribution of 64 WMDs to an individual identified as Giibbless at spawn. The Court observes that the Complaint and supporting evidence indicate that Superwoops initiated contact with the Defendant in response to a public advertisement, arranged each meeting, tendered payment or consideration, and personally received the items in question on three occasions.

Points of Concern

​

A. Government Participation in the Completed Offense​

The trafficking statute under Criminal Code Act Part VI, Section 8 criminalizes the distribution of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Each of the transactions underlying Counts 1 through 3 required a recipient to accept delivery of the items. If Superwoops was acting in a law enforcement capacity or at the direction of the Department of Justice, then the Government itself served as the necessary counterparty to each transaction. The Court questions whether a completed trafficking offense can be sustained where the sole recipient was an agent of the prosecuting authority. The Prosecution shall address whether the Government can simultaneously facilitate the completion of an offense and prosecute the Defendant for that completed offense.​

​

​

B. Entrapment Concerns Under Section 8(2)​

The Court notes that while the Defendant publicly advertised his willingness to distribute WMDs, the actual completed transactions were carried out only because a law enforcement operative or cooperator responded to that advertisement, arranged meetings, and provided payment. The Prosecution shall address whether the methods employed by Superwoops, including repeated return purchases across three separate transactions within a short time span, may constitute inducement or encouragement within the meaning of Section 8(2)(b) of the Criminal Code Act. Essentially, the Prosecution shall address whether these methods created a substantial risk that the offense of trafficking, as distinct from conspiracy or attempted distribution, would be committed by persons other than those already ready to commit it.​

​

​

​

Obligations of the Federal Court System

Judicial power is vested in the courts, whose role is to interpret the law as written by the legislature and administered by the Executive. Section 32(9) of the Constitution further guarantees every citizen the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judicial Officer. Impartiality does not require passivity. Rather, it requires the Court to ensure that the proceedings before it are legally sound and that no party, including the Government, is permitted to advance charges that may be procedurally or substantively deficient. The Court's issuance of an Order to Show Cause does not represent advocacy on behalf of the Defendant; it represents the Court fulfilling its constitutional duty to safeguard the integrity of the judicial process and to ensure that the law is applied correctly and uniformly to all parties, including the prosecuting authority itself.


Thus, @Superwoops, you (and the DoJ) are ordered to show cause as to why Charges 1-3 should not be dismissed with prejudiced. The Government's response is due in 72 Hours. All other deadlines tolled.


So ordered,
Judge Mug

Requesting a 48 hour extension Your Honour. Things are a bit hectic round here right now.

 

[Muggy21]

Requesting a 48 hour extension Your Honour. Things are a bit hectic round here right now.

Granted. Deadline: 2/14/26 @ 9pm EST

 

[AmityBlamity]

Granted. Deadline: 2/14/26 @ 9pm EST

Requesting a final 24 hour extension, Your Honour. I might not need it but just want to be sure.

 

[Muggy21]

Requesting a final 24 hour extension, Your Honour. I might not need it but just want to be sure.

Granted

 

[AmityBlamity]

Brief

Your Honour,

Regarding Government Participation in the Completed Offense
It is the Commonwealth's belief that a completed trafficking offense can be sustained where the sole recipient was an agent of the prosecuting authority. Firstly is the matter of safety. The trafficking of all dangerous items, be they illicit substances or WMDs, represents a clear and present threat to the good citizens of Redmont. It is therefore entirely reasonable, and arguably necessary, for the government to participate in the offense, thereby removing the illicit item from the streets.

Secondly, there is long standing court precedent whereby government agents have carried out the purchase of illicit items, in order to acquire them as evidence for prosecuting the seller. See The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Nebrasken64 [2025] DCR 4, Commonwealth of Redmont v. .Sirbucket420 [2024] FCR 127, The Commonwealth of Redmont v. itz_alexey [2025] FCR 2, and Commonwealth of Redmont v. WWW2020 [2025] DCR 91. In each and every one of the listed cases, a government agent carried out the purchase of the item, and in each and every one of the listed cases, a guilty verdict was reached.

Regarding Entrapment Concerns Under Section 8(2)

As stated in the previous passage, there is long standing legal precedent whereby government agents have purchased illegal items for use as evidence.

Regardless, let us examine the Entrapment clause:

8 - Entrapment

(1) Law Enforcement Official. For the purposes of this Section, a law enforcement official is an officer or employee of any agency or authority of the Commonwealth of Redmont who is empowered by law to:
(a) investigate or conduct an official inquiry into a potential violation of law; or
(b) prosecute or otherwise conduct a criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding arising from an alleged violation of law.

(2) Entrapment. A law enforcement official or a person acting in cooperation with such an official perpetrates an entrapment if for the purpose of obtaining evidence of the commission of an offense, they induce or encourage another person to engage in conduct constituting such offense by either:
(a) making knowingly false representations designed to induce the belief that such conduct is not prohibited; or
(b) employing methods of persuasion or inducement that create a substantial risk that such an offense will be committed by persons other than those who are ready to commit it.

(3) Affirmative Defense. Except as provided in 8(4) of this Act, a person prosecuted for an offense shall be acquitted, or a person charged with a summary criminal offense shall have that offense overturned, if they prove by a balance of probabilities that their conduct occurred in response to an entrapment.

(4) Exception. The defense afforded by this Section is unavailable when causing or threatening bodily injury is an element of the offense charged and the prosecution is based on conduct causing or threatening such injury to a person other than the person perpetrating the entrapment.
(a) “Bodily injury” includes, but is not limited to:
(i) damage to the health bar;
(ii) physical ailments; and
(iii) harmful status effects.
(b) “Bodily injury” does not include damage and/or effects from consensually consumed substances.

Firstly, did Superwoops make knowingly false representations designed to induce the belief that such conduct is not prohibited? Absolutely not. At no point did Superwoops suggest, imply, or outright state that it was perfectly legal to traffick WMDs. In fact, as evidenced in P-004, he did the complete opposite. Superwoops directly informed the defendant that selling mini nukes was illegal. P-005 also showcased NovaTukerbal informing AtomicRedstoner of the illegality of selling such weapons, and he still did it anyway.

Secondly, did Superwoops employ methods of persuasion or inducement that create a substantial risk that such an offense will be committed by persons other than those who are ready to commit it. Absolutely not. The defendant had already made their intent to sell WMDs very clear. Had Superwoops not purchased the mini nukes, they would have been sold to someone else. P-007 demonstrates this very clearly. The defendant was openly selling illegal weaponry, a fact he was fully aware of. This is not some misguided citizen. This is a criminal who knows what he's doing.

Regardless, I would also make the argument that the Entrapment Exception, as show in 8(40), applies here. The Entrapment defense is unavailable "when causing or threatening bodily injury is an element of the offense charged, and the prosecution is based on the conduct causing or threatening such injury to a person other than the person perpetrating the entrapment".

Your Honour, as I'm sure you're aware, WMD stands for Weapon of Mass Destruction. The lethal capabilities of these weapons cannot be understated. I absolutely agree with you that the government should not be allowed to entrap citizens. It is a necessary defense and a means by which the DOJ cannot attempt to falsely charge citizens. But this was not entrapment, and the government needs to be able to continue to purchase such weapons in order to keep Redmont safe.

Furthermore, this does not create a substantial risk of continued trafficking. As previously discussed, the government must intervene in situations where illicit items are sold. What would significantly increase the risk of illicit items being sold would be a ruling whereby government agents were forbidden from acquiring these items to be used as evidence. Arms traders would be free to blatantly offer such technologies to whomever they wished, knowing investigators and prosecutors would have to jump through significantly more hoops in order to drag them before the bench.

 

[Muggy21]

Defendant didn't respond, a non-Superwoops PD will be called.

 

[Muggy21]

@TheSnowGuardian has been selected. Feel free to respond to the OSC if you'd like.

Otherwise, present a plea within 48 Hours.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

May it (not) please the court, PD is present.

I request a 48 hour deadline for the OSC.

 

[Muggy21]

May it (not) please the court, PD is present.

I request a 48 hour deadline for the OSC.

So granted, try to get a plea in during the same time. Extensions will be otherwise afforded.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

So granted, try to get a plea in during the same time. Extensions will be otherwise afforded.

Your Honour, to be proactive (and so as not to get a contempt charge), I request that the court grant a 72-hour timeline for a plea due to the nature of PD work (as well as IRL reasons)

 

[Muggy21]

Your Honour, to be proactive (and so as not to get a contempt charge), I request that the court grant a 72-hour timeline for a plea due to the nature of PD work (as well as IRL reasons)

Granted.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

@Muggy21

Your Honour,
I might need a 24-hour extension on the OSC, most probably not, but to be on the safer side, I request that the court please grant it.

 

[Muggy21]

@Muggy21

Your Honour,
I might need a 24-hour extension on the OSC, most probably not, but to be on the safer side, I request that the court please grant it.

So granted.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Brief

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1. Government Participation in Criminal Activity is Questionable

The question raised before the court today is whether the Government should participate in alleged criminal activity.
The Defense believes that the Government should absolutely not.
The Criminal Code Act states the following about Weapon of Mass Destruction Trafficking:

6 - Weapon of Mass Destruction Trafficking
Offence Type: Indictable
Penalty: Up to 100 Penalty Units; up to 60 minutes imprisonment
A person commits an offence if the person:
(a) sells, distributes, or traffics any substance deemed to be a weapon of mass destruction.

This offence could have been committed even if the Defendant allegedly distributed or trafficked the weapons.
The prosecution is trying the defendant based on the sale in which Superwoops equally participated. The Defense asks the court if the Government's participation in the sale of illegal items should be acceptable.

Furthermore, is the Court expected to follow DCR precedent as stated by the prosecution in their response?

It is the Government's job to catch the sale of illegal items, not participate in them. This sale would have never happened if Superwoops hadn't contacted them. The Defendant would have never released these items to the Prosecution if they had not paid them. This is not a trial based on distribution but a trial based on sales. The Government participated in the sale, and the distribution would have never happened if there had been no sale. The Government should not be allowed to create an offence only to try them in Court later. This not only goes against the Government's duty to remain impartial, but it also contradicts the fundamental principle of the Government's duty in prosecuting illegal acts.

2. Right To Be Treated Equally

We have already established that the alleged distribution would have never happened if there had been no sale.
Section 32 (12) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of the Redmont states the following:

Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status.

If every citizen is equal before the law, then why isn't it that Superwoops hasn't been fined accordingly or attempted to provide evidence that they have been subject to?
Prosecution has already proved that Superwoops had WMDs. Prosecution has not established that Superwoops was acting in a governmental capacity in this deal. And prosecution was an integral part of the sale that happened.

The CCA clearly states that a person commits an offence of possessing WMDs if he/she: "possesses any item deemed to be a weapon of mass destruction."

The Prosecution should not be allowed to try the Defendant for trafficking/sale of WMDs if they themself haven't established that they are protecting my client's right to be treated equally under the law. Essentially, the Prosecution cannot or should not be allowed to apply the law on only one party in this case, and should do its duty as the DoJ of either:

1) Confirming Superwoops was acting as a prosecutor/investigator in a governmental capacity, then (this does mean by producing evidence that Superwoops was aware they were acting as an investigator, and so did the DOJ) OR,
2) Fine Superwoops every time they participated in the sale of WMDs, and therefore possessed WMDs by every sale. Essentially fine Superwoops 5 Penalty units for every count from Count 1-3.

3. Superwoops Encouraged Defendant

The Defense has already established that the Government played an integral part in this sale and is placing the Defendant in a lawsuit that tries them for the distribution of WMDs. There is a clear difference between sale and distribution; sale requires a transaction of money, whereas distribution can be one-sided.

In Facts 5-8, the Prosecution states that they contacted the Defendant for more nukes.

Is this not entrapment?

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Brief

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1. Government Participation in Criminal Activity is Questionable

The question raised before the court today is whether the Government should participate in alleged criminal activity.
The Defense believes that the Government should absolutely not.
The Criminal Code Act states the following about Weapon of Mass Destruction Trafficking:


This offence could have been committed even if the Defendant allegedly distributed or trafficked the weapons.
The prosecution is trying the defendant based on the sale in which Superwoops equally participated. The Defense asks the court if the Government's participation in the sale of illegal items should be acceptable.

Furthermore, is the Court expected to follow DCR precedent as stated by the prosecution in their response?

It is the Government's job to catch the sale of illegal items, not participate in them. This sale would have never happened if Superwoops hadn't contacted them. The Defendant would have never released these items to the Prosecution if they had not paid them. This is not a trial based on distribution but a trial based on sales. The Government participated in the sale, and the distribution would have never happened if there had been no sale. The Government should not be allowed to create an offence only to try them in Court later. This not only goes against the Government's duty to remain impartial, but it also contradicts the fundamental principle of the Government's duty in prosecuting illegal acts.

2. Right To Be Treated Equally

We have already established that the alleged distribution would have never happened if there had been no sale.
Section 32 (12) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of the Redmont states the following:


If every citizen is equal before the law, then why isn't it that Superwoops hasn't been fined accordingly or attempted to provide evidence that they have been subject to?
Prosecution has already proved that Superwoops had WMDs. Prosecution has not established that Superwoops was acting in a governmental capacity in this deal. And prosecution was an integral part of the sale that happened.

The CCA clearly states that a person commits an offence of possessing WMDs if he/she: "possesses any item deemed to be a weapon of mass destruction."

The Prosecution should not be allowed to try the Defendant for trafficking/sale of WMDs if they themself haven't established that they are protecting my client's right to be treated equally under the law. Essentially, the Prosecution cannot or should not be allowed to apply the law on only one party in this case, and should do its duty as the DoJ of either:

1) Confirming Superwoops was acting as a prosecutor/investigator in a governmental capacity, then (this does mean by producing evidence that Superwoops was aware they were acting as an investigator, and so did the DOJ) OR,
2) Fine Superwoops every time they participated in the sale of WMDs, and therefore possessed WMDs by every sale. Essentially fine Superwoops 5 Penalty units for every count from Count 1-3.

3. Superwoops Encouraged Defendant

The Defense has already established that the Government played an integral part in this sale and is placing the Defendant in a lawsuit that tries them for the distribution of WMDs. There is a clear difference between sale and distribution; sale requires a transaction of money, whereas distribution can be one-sided.

In Facts 5-8, the Prosecution states that they contacted the Defendant for more nukes.

Is this not entrapment?

@Muggy21 Your Honour, this was entered by accident; there are no further corrections, but I would have no problem re-submitting with a final brief.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Your Honour, until you can consider a sua sponte dismissal after reading our Brief, the Defense requests a 24-hour extension on plea.

 

[Muggy21]

Your Honour, until you can consider a sua sponte dismissal after reading our Brief, the Defense requests a 24-hour extension on plea.

Granted, I’ll rule on this OSC first

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Granted, I’ll rule on this OSC first

Your Honour, would a plea be due 24 hours after a ruling then?

 

[Muggy21]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order - Sua Sponte Dismissal of Charges 2, 3


History of the Order
The Prosecution filed a four-count Complaint alleging WMD Trafficking under Criminal Code Act Part VI, Section 8. Counts 1 through 3 arise from transactions where Superwoops, serving as both Prosecution counsel and the purchasing party, responded to the Defendant's advertisement, arranged meetings, tendered payment, and received WMDs. Count 4 involves the Defendant's separate distribution of 64 WMDs to Giibbless at spawn.

The Court issued an Order to Show Cause directing the Prosecution to address (A) whether a completed trafficking offense can be sustained where the Government served as the necessary counterparty, and (B) whether the methods employed may constitute entrapment under Section 8(2), specifically whether they "created a substantial risk that the offense of trafficking, as distinct from conspiracy or attempted distribution, would be committed by persons other than those already ready to commit it."

After hearing argument from both parties, the Court has a ripe matter.


Analysis of the Court

The Defendant's alleged criminal intent is not in dispute. He allegedly publicly advertised his willingness to sell nuclear weapons (P-007), was informed by multiple parties that his conduct was illegal (P-004, P-005), and proceeded regardless. The question is whether the Government's participation elevated what would otherwise have been an inchoate offense (not fully formed), an attempt or solicitation that turned into completed trafficking. The statute criminalizes selling, distributing, or trafficking WMDs. A completed sale requires a buyer. Without one, the Defendant's conduct amounts to Conspiracy, not a completed transaction.

A. On Count One
The initial controlled purchase is legally sustainable. A single controlled buy confirms the Defendant's willingness and capability, secures physical evidence, and establishes the factual basis for prosecution. The Defendant was independently predisposed, as demonstrated by his public solicitation. The precedent cited by the Prosecution, (see the list in the Commonwealth's order), supports this conclusion. The Court is not bound by DCR precedent but finds it persuasive on this point.


B. On Counts Two and Three
The Court must ask what legitimate investigative purpose these alleged repeat purchases served. The answer, in this Court's view, is none. The Government did not uncover new criminal conduct. It effectively manufactured additional completed offenses that would not have existed without its continued participation. This engages the concern underlying Section 8(2)(b). The Court reads that provision as encompassing not only the risk of inducing unwilling persons to offend, but also the risk of manufacturing additional completed offenses beyond what the Defendant would have committed absent government involvement. The Defendant was ready to commit trafficking. He was not, however, independently generating the specific transactions underlying Counts 2 and 3. Those transactions existed because the Government returned to purchase more. The Prosecution argues that prohibiting repeat purchases would allow arms dealers to operate freely. The Court is not persuaded. After Count 1, the Government had all the evidence it needed. The appropriate response to a confirmed WMD trafficker is prosecution, not the generation of additional counts through alleged continued purchasing.


The Court makes no remark on Charge 4. Furthermore, the Court notes that even if entrapment were established, the defense may be unavailable under Section 8(4), as WMDs inherently threaten bodily injury.

So ordered,
Judge Mug

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order - Sua Sponte Dismissal of Charges 2, 3


History of the Order
The Prosecution filed a four-count Complaint alleging WMD Trafficking under Criminal Code Act Part VI, Section 8. Counts 1 through 3 arise from transactions where Superwoops, serving as both Prosecution counsel and the purchasing party, responded to the Defendant's advertisement, arranged meetings, tendered payment, and received WMDs. Count 4 involves the Defendant's separate distribution of 64 WMDs to Giibbless at spawn.

The Court issued an Order to Show Cause directing the Prosecution to address (A) whether a completed trafficking offense can be sustained where the Government served as the necessary counterparty, and (B) whether the methods employed may constitute entrapment under Section 8(2), specifically whether they "created a substantial risk that the offense of trafficking, as distinct from conspiracy or attempted distribution, would be committed by persons other than those already ready to commit it."

After hearing argument from both parties, the Court has a ripe matter.


Analysis of the Court

The Defendant's alleged criminal intent is not in dispute. He allegedly publicly advertised his willingness to sell nuclear weapons (P-007), was informed by multiple parties that his conduct was illegal (P-004, P-005), and proceeded regardless. The question is whether the Government's participation elevated what would otherwise have been an inchoate offense (not fully formed), an attempt or solicitation that turned into completed trafficking. The statute criminalizes selling, distributing, or trafficking WMDs. A completed sale requires a buyer. Without one, the Defendant's conduct amounts to Conspiracy, not a completed transaction.

A. On Count One
The initial controlled purchase is legally sustainable. A single controlled buy confirms the Defendant's willingness and capability, secures physical evidence, and establishes the factual basis for prosecution. The Defendant was independently predisposed, as demonstrated by his public solicitation. The precedent cited by the Prosecution, (see the list in the Commonwealth's order), supports this conclusion. The Court is not bound by DCR precedent but finds it persuasive on this point.


B. On Counts Two and Three
The Court must ask what legitimate investigative purpose these alleged repeat purchases served. The answer, in this Court's view, is none. The Government did not uncover new criminal conduct. It effectively manufactured additional completed offenses that would not have existed without its continued participation. This engages the concern underlying Section 8(2)(b). The Court reads that provision as encompassing not only the risk of inducing unwilling persons to offend, but also the risk of manufacturing additional completed offenses beyond what the Defendant would have committed absent government involvement. The Defendant was ready to commit trafficking. He was not, however, independently generating the specific transactions underlying Counts 2 and 3. Those transactions existed because the Government returned to purchase more. The Prosecution argues that prohibiting repeat purchases would allow arms dealers to operate freely. The Court is not persuaded. After Count 1, the Government had all the evidence it needed. The appropriate response to a confirmed WMD trafficker is prosecution, not the generation of additional counts through alleged continued purchasing.


The Court makes no remark on Charge 4. Furthermore, the Court notes that even if entrapment were established, the defense may be unavailable under Section 8(4), as WMDs inherently threaten bodily injury.

So ordered,
Judge Mug

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

Your Honour, pursuant to your above ruling, the Defence requests that the Court strike charges 2 and 3

Furthermore, we request a 36-hour deadline on the plea, as I am currently busy with family matters.
The Defense will be ever so grateful if the Court is merciful and generous with this request.

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

Your Honour, pursuant to your above ruling, the Defence requests that the Court strike charges 2 and 3

Furthermore, we request a 36-hour deadline on the plea, as I am currently busy with family matters.
The Defense will be ever so grateful if the Court is merciful and generous with this request.

Granted, in line with my Order.

 

[Superwoops]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECUSE

The Prosecution moves for recusal of Judge Muggy in accordance with §7(4) of the Judicial Standards Act, which sets out bias or the appearance of bias as valid conflicts of interest, and by extension, valid reasons for recusal of a judicial officer.

The Court's reasoning for the Order
The Court has stated that it is the Court's responsibility to ensure that "no party, including the Government, is permitted to advance charges that may be procedurally or substantively deficient." This rhetoric is fundamentally flawed. It is defense counsel's prerogative to ensure that charges which do not have a legal basis are challenged. Only then is it up to the judicial officer to issue a ruling weighing the arguments of both parties. In short, it is not the Court's duty to ensure that these so-called deficient charges do not advance; its duty is to rule against these deficient charges in its verdict if it truly believes they are deficient after hearing opening statements, witness questioning and closing statements. All three of these instances have been looked over when Judge Muggy in this case prematurely ordered the Commonwealth to show cause, then dismissed two charges, and fulfills one of the grounds for recusal listed in the Motions guide, namely, "The judge has made previous rulings or comments suggesting they have pre-judged the case." This is not an abstract concern, but a serious structural defect that was pointed out in Lawsuit: Dismissed - ToadKing & Omegabiebel v. 12700k [2025] FCR 129 where it served as a valid grounds for recusal.

On entrapment
Entrapment is codified as an affirmative defense. This sets an additional burden of proof on the defendant: should the defense prove this set of facts, then the defendant is found not guilty of the crime in question. The Criminal Terminology Act states that when entrapment has occurred, then "a person prosecuted for [entrapment] shall be acquitted." In turn, acquittal is the lack of guilt found in a verdict.
Because entrapment is an affirmative defense, Judge Muggy has shown the appearance of bias by assuming the posture of defense counsel, signaling a premature acceptance of facts where statute does not permit it. Effectively, entrapment is not a defect in standing, but an applicable defense in certain cases. Indeed, Lawsuit: Dismissed - The Commonwealth of Redmont v. LilLethalVert [2023] FCR 86 confirms that, disregarding the possibility of the Court siding with the defense on the issue of entrapment in the verdict, defenses are not valid reasons for dismissal. If a party is not allowed to dismiss through legal argumentation, the Court's one-sided decision to raise such a defense and threaten a dismissal is unmistakably an appearance of bias.

For the above reasons, the Commonwealth respectfully requests the Honourable Judge Muggy to recuse from this case under §7(4) of the Judicial Standards Act.

​

​

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Would Your Honour clarify when a plea would be accepted while a motion to recuse is being considered by the Court?

 

[Muggy21]

Would Your Honour clarify when a plea would be accepted while a motion to recuse is being considered by the Court?

Post when able, there's no change in deadlines.

 

[Muggy21]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order - CW's Motion to Recuse

Commonwealth moves for this recusal of the Court's presiding officer for alleged bias or the appearance of bias arising from this Court's Order to Show Cause and subsequent actions. The Court has reviewed the motion and finds its meritless.

Analysis of the Court

The Prosecution alleges that this Court's issuance of an Order to Show Cause and subsequent dismissal of Counts 2 and 3 constitutes pre-judgment of the case. This argument is flatly incorrect and reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what pre-judgment means.

Pre-judgment requires that a judicial officer form and express a view on the guilt or culpability of a party before adjudication. This Court has expressed no such view. As established in Commonwealth of Redmont v. MilkCrack [2023] FCR 74, a judge may not be recused merely for expressing displeasure with a party's conduct or disagreeing with their decisions, absent evidence that the judge has prejudged the legal merits or predetermined guilt on the specific charges. The distinction between expressing concern about legal sufficiency and prejudging guilt is material. This Court identified a structural legal deficiency in specific charges, invited full briefing from both parties, heard argument, and issued a reasoned ruling. That is not pre-judgment. That is what the community would call "judging."

More troublingly so, is the Prosecution's attempt to use a motion to recuse as a response to an order of this Court. Dissatisfaction with a prior ruling is not a valid basis for recusal; It has never been a valid basis for recusal (see The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Deadwax, [2022] SCR 12, the Supreme Court sua sponte dismissed evidence as "improper." -- The Courts have an obligation to protect the integrity of the trial, be it from improper evidence or deficient claims.) The Prosecution has not leveled actionable nor even perceived bias. The appropriate remedy for a ruling a party believes to be erroneous is a motion to reconsider or an appeal through the proper appellate channel. To hold otherwise would permit recusal to be weaponized as a tactical instrument by any party aggrieved by an adverse ruling, fundamentally undermining judicial independence and the orderly administration of justice.

Lastly, the Prosecution's reliance on Commonwealth of Redmont v. lilethalvert [2023] FCR 86 is confusing to this Court. The Motion to Dismiss in that case was borne of a legal disagreement from factual disagreement over property evaluation, and bore no relation to the structural legal deficiencies arising from government conduct that this Court identified sua sponte. That case does not stand for the proposition that affirmative defenses can never serve as a basis for dismissal at the charging stage; it stands only for the narrower conclusion that a factual dispute over valuation does not defeat the legal sufficiency of a charge on its face. The Court's dismissal of Counts 2 and 3 was grounded not in the entrapment defense as an affirmative plea from the Defendant, but in the Court's independent assessment that the Government's repeated participation manufactured completed offenses that would not otherwise have existed, a structural concern of a categorically different character.

In closing, the Federal Court is an arm of the judiciary of our Commonwealth. I do not issue "rhetoric", I issue orders and briefings involving the laws of this country. Calling an order of this Court "rhetoric" is disrespectful and needlessly impugns the character of this Court. If the Commonwealth disagrees with my order, it is welcome to challenge it on reconsideration.

DENIED.

So ordered,
Judge Mug

 

[Superwoops]

The Commonwealth would like to exercise its right to request review of the motion by a second judge.

 

[Muggy21]

The Commonwealth would like to exercise its right to request review of the motion by a second judge.

I'll notify the CJ and Judge Ko.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Plea

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
PLEA

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

AtomicRedstoner
Defendant

I. ENTRY OF PLEA
1. Not Guilty on Count 1 of Distributing WMDs
2. No Contest on Count 4 of Distributing WMDs

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 27th day of February 2026

 

[ko531]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order - CW's Motion to Recuse


Analysis of the Court

The prosecution argues in short that it is not the duty of a judicial officer when presiding over a trial to be proactive in any manner and must only be reactive to what the parties, but specifically the defense in this scenario, argue and challenge until verdict. With the presiding judicial officer, Muggy21, being proactive in the sense of producing an order to show cause and later an order to Sua sponte on some of the prosecutions charges, the argument is they have prejudiced or created the appearance of prejudice towards the prosecution.

This set of orders by the presiding officer on review not only are backed up by precedent but in theory helped the prosecution's case. The dismissal of certain charges brought by the prosecution is seen as an identical act to other Sua sponte dismissals of entire cases. The only difference here is unlike other Sua sponte dismissals, Muggy21 heard arguments on the topic before ruling. It is important to make sure a charge or claim of relief can be heard before hearing it. The Sua sponte dismissal is not something limited to an all or nothing approach for cases but can be used for individual claims or charges.

The presiding officer in making such a decision to Sua sponte dismiss certain charges while refraining to do so on others has not biased themselves on the remaining charges. The issue addressed and adjudicated was if the charges able to be heard in the first place. The issue of the legitimacy of the charges and whether guilt can be proven was not addressed or considered in these decisions and therefore no prejudice or appearance of such exists.

On review this act is also seen as having the potential of helping the prosecution and not being prejudicial against them. The court identified charges that were not legally sound and were impossible to prove the guilt of. Instead of leaving these charges intact which had the potential to waste the court's time on arguments for unwinnable convictions, the court dismissed them allowing the prosecution and defense to directly focus their time on charges with a potential for success. This goes to focus both sides on their arguments while also being fundamentally necessary for a more efficient and effective administration of justice.

Therefore, for all of the reasons above I am going to have to deny this motion to recuse.

DENIED.

So adjudicated,
Judge Ko

(I am not sorry for stealing the formatting style of Your Honor, Muggy21)

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT 1

The Defence requests that the Court dismiss Count 1 of Distributing WMDs based on the following reasons:

I. Superwoops Lacked the Capacity to Participate Legally

Part VI, Sections 5 and 6 of the Criminal Code Act state:

5 - Weapon of Mass Destruction Possession
Offence Type: Summary
A person commits an offence if the person: (a) possesses a Weapon of Mass Destruction.
This offence shall not occur where: (b) valid Enhanced firearms license; and (c) permission of DHS Secretary or AFCoR Major; and (d) official duties as DHS/AFCoR member.

6 - Weapon of Mass Destruction Trafficking
Offence Type: Indictable
A person commits an offence if the person: ...(b) distributes a Weapon of Mass Destruction.
Instance (b) shall not occur where: (a) valid Enhanced firearms license; and (b) permission of DHS Secretary or AFCoR Major; and (c) official duties as DHS/AFCoR member.

The Prosecution (Superwoops) played an equal part yet proved none of the exceptions:
1. No valid Enhanced Firearms License shown in discovery.
2. No DHS Secretary or AFCoR Major permission was shown that was granted before the sale.
3. Being affiliated with the DoJ does not constitute DHS/AFCoR duties.

Distribution encompasses both giving and receiving participation. Superwoops cannot claim government exemption without evidence satisfying all three conjunctive elements.

II. Pursuant to Court Rule 5.7 – Failure to Include All Necessary Parties

The Commonwealth failed to join Superwoops as a necessary party because Superwoops committed the identical offense of WMD Distribution under CCA Part VI, Section 6(b), but lacked a statutory exemption. Superwoops participated equally as receiver—possessing and distributing the WMD without satisfying the mandatory three-part exception. All parties to the same criminal act must be charged under Rule 5.7.

Even if the Court finds Superwoops did not distribute WMDs, the Prosecution still hasn't shown where the WMDs ultimately went, and crucially—Superwoops STILL possessed the WMDs in violation of Section 5, committing that offense regardless.

III. Selective Prosecution Violates Constitutional Equality Rights

Part V, Section 35(13) of the Redmont Constitution's Charter of Rights and Freedoms expressly guarantees: "Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status."

The Commonwealth's decision to charge this Defendant while completely shielding Superwoops—who committed the identical offense under identical facts—solely because Superwoops holds government affiliation, constitutes blatant unequal treatment. Superwoops had no legal authority to act on the government's behalf, lacking the required DHS/AFCoR duties, license, and permission established above. This selective prosecution discriminates against the Defendant based on social status (private citizen versus government operative) and denies equal protection and the benefit of the law. No legitimate prosecutorial discretion justifies prosecuting one identical co-offender while granting de facto immunity to the other based purely on unauthorized employment status. This violation of fundamental Charter equality rights renders Count 1 constitutionally defective and mandates dismissal.

WHEREFORE, the Defence requests Count 1 be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 5.16.

 

[Superwoops]

Your honour, may the Prosecution respond to the Motion to Dismiss?