Lawsuit: Pending Commonwealth of Redmont v. corstkiller00 [2025] DCR 85

[Vennefly]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

corstkiller00
Defendant

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

On the 11th of September 2025, the Defendant knowingly and wilfully interfered with the Administration of Justice by murdering a Detective and Police Officer working on an active crime scene.

I. PARTIES
1. corstkiller00 (Defendant)
2. Commonwealth of Redmont (Prosecution)

II. FACTS
1. On the 11th of September 2025, Detective and Police Officer Rookieblue14 arrived at an active crime scene in order to investigate (P-001).
2. The Defendant was already present in the proximity of the crime scene (P-001).
3. Upon arriving at the crime scene, the Defendant approached Rookieblue14 and said "back". Rookieblue14 let the Defendant know he was there looking for clues, as is his job as a Detective for the Department of Homeland Security (P-001 and P-002).
4. As Rookieblue14's title as a Detective was clearly showing and he told Defendant that he was looking for clues, Defendant knew, or reasonably should have known, that Rookieblue14 was, at that time, a Law Enforcement Officer working on an active case (P-001 and P-002).
5. Momentarily afterwards, the Defendant said "5 seconds" and then the Defendant shot Rookieblue14 in the head with a SPAS-12 Automatic Shotgun, murdering him (P-001 and P-002).

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. One Count of Obstruction of Justice, pursuant to Part III, Section 3 of the Criminal Code Act. This offence is committed when a person "willfully interferes with the process of justice by influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, or law enforcement officer". Rookieblue14 was a Law Enforcement Officer working on an active case, which Defendant knew. Defendant intentionally murdered him by shooting him (harming him), thereby knowingly and wilfully interfering with the Administration of Justice.

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. A 3 Penalty Unit Fine, and 60 minutes of imprisonment, with respect to One Count of Obstruction of Justice.

V. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

VI. WITNESSES

• Rookieblue14

VII. DECLARATION AND SIGNATURE
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 24th day of October 2025

Respectfully filed,
Vennefly, on behalf of the Commonwealth.

 

[Muggy21]

Writ of Summons

@corstkiller00 , is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Commonwealth of Redmont v. corstkiller00

In the interest of more efficient Courtroom proceedings, the Court will permit responses to motions without prior Court permission. The deadline for said motions shall be 48 hours.

Furthermore, in obedience with Rule 1.4, parties are advised that engaging in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of this Court or its proceedings are at risk at being held in Contempt of Court.

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.

 

[corstkiller00]

I am present. And plead guilty

 

[Vennefly]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION REQUESTING SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

Your Honour,

Considering that Defendant immediately upon appearing in this Court has stated that they will plead Guilty, it appears the facts in this case are not disputed and nothing would be gained through Discovery and/or further statements by the Parties. We therefore respectfully move for Summary Judgement, and anticipate the Defendant will concur in this.

Respectfully filed,
Vennefly, on behalf of the Commonwealth.

 

[Muggy21]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order to Show Cause - Sua Sponte Dismissal

The Court, on review of the allegations and facts, is concerned with the Commonwealth's ability to prosecute for this specific allegation.

As alleged, the Defendant killed a Detective in the course of his duties, not a Police Officer. Under the CCA, as the Commonwealth has pointed out in its Complaint, Obstruction of Justice is the willful interference of a law enforcement officer. Undoubtedly, if Rookieblue14 was effectuating an arrest under his DCPolice powers, the "law enforcement officer" component of the CCA is met.


I'm not sure a Detective is a Law Enforcement Officer, @Vennefly, you shall have 48 hours to brief this Court on this question.

-> Is a Detective a Law Enforcement Officer?

The Court is considering a sua sponte dismissal, both parties are invited to respond if willing, except as the CW's response is ordered.

 

[Vennefly]

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
BRIEF

Your Honour,

This Honourable Court has requested that the Prosecution provide the Court with a brief answering the question: "Is a Detective a Law Enforcement Officer?". The Prosecution believes this question should be answered in the affirmative, for the reasons I will further discuss below.

I. Definitions in Law or Case Law
The question of whether or not a Detective is a Law Enforcement Officer pertaining to the crime of Obstruction of Justice is not directly answered in Law and has not been answered in Case Law. However, a related definition can be found in the Criminal Terminology Act, which is the definition of a Law Enforcement Official used in the definition of Entrapment:

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.

This definition of Law Enforcement Official would not only cover Police Officers and Detectives, but even Investigators and Prosecutors. Although this definition does not directly apply to the crime of Obstruction of Justice (as clearly noted by "For the purposes of this Section"), this related Definition does demonstrate that the Legislature has a broad understanding of who may fall under the umbrella of law enforcement. The inclusion of both investigative and prosecutorial roles within the definition of a Law Enforcement Official indicates that the Legislature does not view the term as limited to uniformed officers conducting patrol or arrests. Rather, it encompasses all individuals empowered to investigate violations of law or advance the enforcement process.

Applying this legislative intent by analogy, it follows that the term Law Enforcement Officer, when used elsewhere in the Criminal Code, should be interpreted in a manner consistent with this broad conception. A Detective, as an officer within the Department of Homeland Security, the Commonwealth's law enforcement agency, is clearly empowered by law to "investigate or conduct an official inquiry into a potential violation of law." Thus, even if the Law Enforcement Official definition in the Criminal Terminology Act is formally confined to its own section, it nonetheless provides valuable interpretive guidance in determining legislative intent, suggesting the main question of this brief should be answered in the affirmative.

II. Institutional context and functional role
To properly interpret the term Law Enforcement Officer, it is necessary to consider the institutional structure of the Commonwealth's government, particularly the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), within which Detectives serve. The DHS functions as Redmont's primary law enforcement authority. Its mandate includes enforcing criminal law, maintaining public order, and protecting the security of the Commonwealth and its citizens.

Detectives are sworn officers of this Department, appointed and operating under the department's command structure, as do Police Officers. Their duties involve the investigation of crimes, the gathering of evidence, and the identification of offenders, important functions that lie at the very heart of law enforcement. By contrast, Investigators, who operate within the Department of Justice, are civilian personnel assisting in prosecutorial matters. They do not exercise police authority.

This institutional separation between the DHS and the Department of Justice reflects a deliberate design: the former enforces the law, while the latter prosecutes its violation. Detectives, as members of the DHS, therefore belong unequivocally to the enforcement arm of government. Their authority and responsibilities are derived not from prosecutorial powers but from the Commonwealth's mandate to prevent and investigate crime.

It would thus be inconsistent with both structure and purpose to exclude Detectives from the category of Law Enforcement Officers. The Commonwealth's legal framework recognises the DHS as its law enforcement body, and all sworn members of that Department, including Detectives, necessarily share that designation. The specific focus of duties (patrol versus investigation) does not alter the nature of the office. Both roles exist to uphold and enforce the criminal law.

Accordingly, within the institutional context of the Commonwealth of Redmont, Detectives are properly understood to be Law Enforcement Officers by virtue of their position, function, and oath within the Department of Homeland Security.

III. Purpose
The goal of prohibiting Obstruction of Justice is to protect the integrity of the justice system by stopping individuals from interfering with the lawful functions of its institutions and officers. This ensures that those tasked with enforcing the law and administering justice can carry out their duties without hindrance, deception, or obstruction.

To construe the definition of a Law Enforcement Officer narrowly, to include only Police Officers, frustrates this purpose. Detectives play a critical role in the investigation of specific crimes, namely murders. Any act that obstructs a Detective in the performance of those duties equally undermines the administration of justice. The investigative process is the foundation upon which prosecutions rest. If that process is compromised, so too is the rule of law.

It would therefore be inconsistent with legislative intent to interpret the statute as protecting only Police Officers specifically, while leaving those who carry out investigative duties unprotected. The Legislature's clear aim was to safeguard the function of justice, not the form of the officer performing it. Both Police Officers and Detectives act under lawful authority to enforce the Commonwealth’s criminal laws. Both are targets of obstruction when individuals seek to conceal wrongdoing or frustrate investigation.

Furthermore, the offence of Obstruction of Justice is not one of formality but of purpose. It is designed to punish conduct that impedes the discovery of truth and the enforcement of law. Detectives, as sworn officers charged with precisely that mission, are plainly among those whose duties the statute seeks to protect.

Now therefore, a purposive interpretation of the statute relating to Obstruction of Justice can only lead to the conclusion that interference with a Detective constitutes interference with a Law Enforcement Officer.

IV. Conclusion
In the absence of a directly applicable statutory definition, the term Law Enforcement Officer must be interpreted according to legislative intent, institutional context, and common understanding. Detectives, as sworn members of the Department of Homeland Security, the Commonwealth's law enforcement agency, perform duties central to the enforcement of criminal law.

The purpose of the offence of Obstruction of Justice is to safeguard the proper functioning of the justice system, which necessarily includes protecting those who investigate crimes and uphold the law. To exclude Detectives from this protection would contradict both reason and purpose.

Thus, the Commonwealth submits that Detectives are, in both law and function, Law Enforcement Officers within the meaning of the Criminal Code.

Respectfully filed,
Vennefly, on behalf of the Commonwealth.

 

[Muggy21]

The Court is going to assign a Public Defender to @corstkiller00. An experienced counselor should guide or be able to respond in opposition (if appropriate) to the Court's OSC.

 

[corstkiller00]

May i ask how is it I am being charged for the same crime twice? I already payed a fine etc for killing rookie on the 11th of September?

 

[Muggy21]

May i ask how is it I am being charged for the same crime twice? I already payed a fine etc for killing rookie on the 11th of September?

You're being charged with "Obstruction of Justice" an indictable offense as defined under the Criminal Code Act.

I've review our Court Docket, you haven't been criminally indicted before the Courts before. I'm working on getting you a Public Defender, so they may advise and guide you.

 

[corstkiller00]

I do not want public defender, I wish to represent myself

 

[Vennefly]

May i ask how is it I am being charged for the same crime twice? I already payed a fine etc for killing rookie on the 11th of September?

Objection

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

Your Honour,

I would request that the Court formally strikes these remarks from the record, given that they were made outside a proper filing and that these remarks are unsubstantiated. Although the Prosecution understands that the Defendant has certain questions, these should be discussed with an Attorney or Public Defender, or even with the Prosecution in a DOJ ticket, outside of this Court, in order to avoid prejudicing the Court.

Given that the Defendant is not a professional Attorney, the Prosecution will only ask that these remarks be stricken and will not request any further action resulting from this.

Respectfully filed,
Vennefly, on behalf of the Commonwealth.

 

[corstkiller00]

Can we please just end this, i already pled guilty

 

[Muggy21]

Can we please just end this, i already pled guilty

The Court finds you in Contempt, you shall be issued a fine of $100 and be held in jail for 10 minutes. If you wish to represent yourself, you'll follow the rules of the Court.

 

[Muggy21]

Objection

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

Your Honour,

I would request that the Court formally strikes these remarks from the record, given that they were made outside a proper filing and that these remarks are unsubstantiated. Although the Prosecution understands that the Defendant has certain questions, these should be discussed with an Attorney or Public Defender, or even with the Prosecution in a DOJ ticket, outside of this Court, in order to avoid prejudicing the Court.

Given that the Defendant is not a professional Attorney, the Prosecution will only ask that these remarks be stricken and will not request any further action resulting from this.

Respectfully filed,
Vennefly, on behalf of the Commonwealth.

Sustained, however I'm not going to strike the comment, the Court already handled it.

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION REQUESTING SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

Your Honour,

Considering that Defendant immediately upon appearing in this Court has stated that they will plead Guilty, it appears the facts in this case are not disputed and nothing would be gained through Discovery and/or further statements by the Parties. We therefore respectfully move for Summary Judgement, and anticipate the Defendant will concur in this.

Respectfully filed,
Vennefly, on behalf of the Commonwealth.

The Court accepts the Guilty plea, the Court will be in recess pending verdict.