Lawsuit: In Session Commonwealth of Redmont v. EatYourGreens_ [2025] DCR 101

ameslap

ameslap

Citizen
Senator
Congressional Staff
State Department
Justice Department
Education Department
Supporter
Oakridge Resident
5th Anniversary Change Maker Staff Popular in the Polls
ameslap
ameslap
Senator
Joined
Jan 7, 2025
Messages
431

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION

Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

EatYourGreens_
Defendant

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

PROSECUTING AUTHORITY REPORT

On November 13th, 2025 DHS Recruit Officer Culls was acting in his official capacity as a law enforcement officer attempting to take FracturedGhast7 into custody. While making the arrest, Recruit Culls was killed by EatYourGreens.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES
1. Commonwealth of Redmont
2. EatYourGreens

II. FACTS
1. On November 13th, DHS Recruit Officer Culls went to arrest FracturedGhast7. (P-001)
2. While attempting to detain FracturedGhast7, EatYourGreens killed Recruit Culls. (P-001)
3. EatYourGreens believed they were the one being detained, as he was wanted for murder at the time. (P-002)
4. EatYourGreens admitted to killing Recruit Culls by apologizing. (P-002)

III. CHARGES
1. Obstruction of Justice: Eat YourGreens willfully interfered with the process of justice by harming a law enforcement officer while they were attempting to arrest a suspect.

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. For Obstruction of Justice: 60 minutes of imprisonment and 3 penalty units.

V. WITNESS LIST
1. EatYourGreens- Defendant
2. Culls - Arresting Officer
3. FracturedGhast7 - Eye-witness

VI. EVIDENCE
P-001.png
P-003.png
P-002.png

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 3rd day of December, 2025

 

Writ of Summons

@EatYourGreens (EatYourGreens_), is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Commonwealth of Redmont v. EatYourGreens_ [2025] DCR 101

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

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.

 
@EatYourGreens has failed to appear within 72 hours of the summons. As he has otherwise been active (C-001), he is hereby held in Contempt of Court and shall be fined R$1,000 and imprisoned for 10 minutes.

A public defender has been called and will appear shortly.

Screenshot 2025-12-07 at 23.01.07.png
 
Vennefly said:
@EatYourGreens has failed to appear within 72 hours of the summons. As he has otherwise been active (C-001), he is hereby held in Contempt of Court and shall be fined R$1,000 and imprisoned for 10 minutes.

A public defender has been called and will appear shortly.

View attachment 68513
Click to expand...


Your Honour,

I have just been assigned to this case as PD.
 
Your honor, we have come to a plea agreement:

The Defendant shall:
1. Plea Guilty to the charge of Obstruction of Justice
2. Be imprisoned for 15 minutes
3. Be fined 1.5 penalty units

@Vernicia can attest to this and we ask that the court order it.

Thank you.
 
@Vernicia have you discussed this with your client and does he agree?
 
Vennefly said:
@Vernicia have you discussed this with your client and does he agree?
Click to expand...

I have discussed this with my client, and he "does not want to deal with the court" or anything around it. I believe this plea deal fulfills his wishes.
 
Your honor,

Obviously @EatYourGreens plans to represent themselves and has intended to represent themselves this entire time.

I ask that you release @Vernicia
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Accidentally typed post before I was done…

I ask that you release @Vernicia
 
Last edited by a moderator:
WHAT THE HECK.

I ask that you release Vern, hold EatYourGreens in contempt again, and…

I move for Default Judgement since EatYourGreens decided not to pursue this case.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ameslap said:
Your honor,

Obviously @EatYourGreens plans to represent themselves and has intended to represent themselves this entire time.

I ask that you release @Vernicia
Click to expand...
ameslap said:
Accidentally typed post before I was done…

I ask that you release @Vernicia
Click to expand...
ameslap said:
WHAT THE HECK.

I ask that you release Vern, hold EatYourGreens in contempt again, and…

I move for Default Judgement since EatYourGreens decided not to pursue this case.
Click to expand...

Motion


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

I wish to strike the above. I was on my phone when typing and it made everything bad. I'm SO SORRY!



That being said...

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

Your Honor,

It appears that EatYourGreens had every intention to defend themselves, and is now refusing counsel. Since they did not ever appear for anything or submit anything, I request that you:
1. Hold them in Contempt once again;
2. Go to Default Judgement with the full sentence for this disregard of the law and rejecting the plea deal;
3. Release @Vernicia from Counsel since EatYourGreens appears to not want any counsel.

Thank you.

 
EatYourGreens said:
I do not agree.
Click to expand...

@EatYourGreens do you wish to represent yourself in these proceedings, do you wish to continue with Vernicia as Public Defender or do you wish to appoint another lawyer as your counsel?

You must answer within 48 hours. Failure to answer will result in being held in Contempt of Court.
 
ameslap said:

Motion


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

I wish to strike the above. I was on my phone when typing and it made everything bad. I'm SO SORRY!

Click to expand...

STRUCK as requested.
 
Vennefly said:
@EatYourGreens do you wish to represent yourself in these proceedings, do you wish to continue with Vernicia as Public Defender or do you wish to appoint another lawyer as your counsel?

You must answer within 48 hours. Failure to answer will result in being held in Contempt of Court.
Click to expand...
I am unsure why @ameslap is attempting to speak for me, I do wish to stick with Vernicia as my public defender.
 
ameslap said:
Your honor, we have come to a plea agreement:

The Defendant shall:
1. Plea Guilty to the charge of Obstruction of Justice
2. Be imprisoned for 15 minutes
3. Be fined 1.5 penalty units

@Vernicia can attest to this and we ask that the court order it.

Thank you.
Click to expand...

Plea Deal DENIED. A Guilty Plea in a criminal proceeding constitutes a personal waiver of constitutional rights by the Defendant. As such, circumstances allowing, such a Plea must be assented to by Defendant personally. In cases where Defendant is reasonably reachable, a Guilty Plea can therefore only be entered with consent from the Defendant themselves. As in this case Defendant has voiced his disagreement with the proposed Plea Deal, the Court must reject it.
 
ameslap said:

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

Your Honor,

It appears that EatYourGreens had every intention to defend themselves, and is now refusing counsel. Since they did not ever appear for anything or submit anything, I request that you:
1. Hold them in Contempt once again;
2. Go to Default Judgement with the full sentence for this disregard of the law and rejecting the plea deal;
3. Release @Vernicia from Counsel since EatYourGreens appears to not want any counsel.

Thank you.

Click to expand...

DENIED. A Guilty Plea in a criminal proceeding constitutes a personal waiver of constitutional rights by the Defendant. Refusal by the Defendant to assent to a Plea Deal, even when voiced in the manner that Defendant has used here, does not entitle the Prosecution to a Default Judgement. Such a Default Judgement would be a gross violation of Defendant's right to a fair trial, their right to be confronted with the evidence against them, and their right to have the assistance of legally qualified counsel for their defence.

@Vernicia please present a Plea within 48 hours.
 

Plea​


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
PLEA

Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Eatyourgreens
Defendant

I. ENTRY OF PLEA
1. 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 13 day of December 2025
 
We will now enter discovery, which will last for 5 days. Discovery may be ended early upon joint request by the Parties.

@Vernicia @ameslap
 

Motion


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

Your honor,

We request that the Plaintiff be compelled to submit any screenshots, chat logs, or videos they have from the incident on November 13th.

Thank you

 
ameslap said:

Motion


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

Your honor,

We request that the Plaintiff be compelled to submit any screenshots, chat logs, or videos they have from the incident on November 13th.

Thank you

Click to expand...
I have committed a great offense by typing the wrong party.

Please compel the Defendant to produce this evidence not the Plaintiff.

I am sorry for this gaffe.
 
ameslap said:
I have committed a great offense by typing the wrong party.

Please compel the Defendant to produce this evidence not the Plaintiff.

I am sorry for this gaffe.
Click to expand...

DENIED. A Defendant in a criminal case cannot be compelled to disclose incriminating evidence against themselves.
 
Vennefly said:
DENIED. A Defendant in a criminal case cannot be compelled to disclose incriminating evidence against themselves.
Click to expand...
Sounds good.

We are ready to proceed.

If the Defendant is willing, we would also be open to an in-game trial.
 
We do not wish for an in-game trial and rather have a standart trial.
 
Trial will now commence.

@ameslap please present an opening statement for the Commonwealth within 72 hours. Immediately after posting your opening statement, @Vernicia will have 72 hours to present Defendant's opening statement.

For the Commonwealth: please tag opposing counsel in your filing so they know when their time starts.
 

Opening Statement


Your Honor,

Today, the Commonwealth will begin presenting a clear case that the Defendant, EatYourGreens_, committed obstruction of justice. This charge is not merely about an unfortunate encounter, but a willful interference with the lawful operations of justice.

On November 13th, 2025, Officer Culls, acting in his official capacity as an Officer, was attempting to execute a lawful arrest of FracturedGhast7. During this action, EatYourGreens_ intentionally and violently interfered with that process. The Defendant killed Officer Culls at the very moment the officer was performing his duties. This act directly derailed an essential component of justice.

Obstruction of Justice is defined as follows:

(a) willfully interferes with the process of justice by influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, or law enforcement officer; or
(b) knowingly provides false information to a law enforcement officer in the course of their duties.
Click to expand...

EatYourGreens_ did just that. Taking action not in self-defense, but in a manner that was made to disrupt an officer executing the process of justice.

The defense may suggest that EatYourGreens_ believed he was the subject of the arrest and all should be forgiven because he apologized. That belief, even if true, changes nothing.

Obstruction of Justice does not hinge on who the defendant believed was being arrested. It hinges on whether the defendant willfully interfered with a lawful law enforcement action. Whether Office Culls was arresting FracturedGhast7 or EatYourGreens_ himself, the outcome is legally identical: the defendant used force to stop an officer from executing the law.

For these reasons, the Commonwealth will ask this Court to find that EatYourGreens_ obstructed justice and must be held accountable under the law.

Thank you.



@Vernicia
 
Your Honor,

In the spirit of Christmas, may the defendant have a 2-day extension here?
 
I do not celebrate Christmas. Do not offer me any Christmas spirit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
EatYourGreens said:
I do not celebrate Christmas. Do not offer me any Christmas spirit.
Click to expand...

These remarks are wholly irrelevant to these proceedings and serve no legitimate purpose. They will be struck from the record.

You must not post messages that are irrelevant, disruptive, or otherwise derail the proceedings of this Court. Engaging in such conduct may result in being held in Contempt of Court, which carries sanctions up to a R$10,000 fine and 10 minutes of imprisonment.
 
Vennefly said:
These remarks are wholly irrelevant to these proceedings and serve no legitimate purpose. They will be struck from the record.

You must not post messages that are irrelevant, disruptive, or otherwise derail the proceedings of this Court. Engaging in such conduct may result in being held in Contempt of Court, which carries sanctions up to a R$10,000 fine and 10 minutes of imprisonment.
Click to expand...
It was relevant. I was suggesting that the court proceed.
 
EatYourGreens said:
I represent myself, I will not subject Vernicia with this case.
Click to expand...

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion For Clarification

Your honor,

While unusual and this may not be a proper motion, it is an important one.

The Commonwealth wishes to clarify if the Defendant was always representing themselves or if Vernicia was indeed the Defendant’s counsel until just now.

Thank you.

 
"1 - Disturbing the Peace
Offence Type: Indictable
Penalty: Up to 100 Penalty Units; up to 60 minutes imprisonment
A person commits an offence if the person:
(a) engages in disorderly behavior toward an individual or group that causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress."

I've made it clear I am not interested in this case, and further pursuance by the courts/plaintiff is considered harassment. By law, this would be considered disturbing the peace.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
EatYourGreens said:
The defense is withdrawing from the case and will not accept any punishment. Thank you.
Click to expand...
EatYourGreens said:
"1 - Disturbing the Peace
Offence Type: Indictable
Penalty: Up to 100 Penalty Units; up to 60 minutes imprisonment
A person commits an offence if the person:
(a) engages in disorderly behavior toward an individual or group that causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress."

I've made it clear I am not interested in this case, and further pursuance by the courts/plaintiff is considered harassment. By law, this would be considered disturbing the peace.
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Objection - Breach of Procedure

I think this goes without saying, but this is out of place... unless one of these posts happen to be their opening statement I guess.

Thank you.

 
ameslap said:

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion For Clarification

Your honor,

While unusual and this may not be a proper motion, it is an important one.

The Commonwealth wishes to clarify if the Defendant was always representing themselves or if Vernicia was indeed the Defendant’s counsel until just now.

Thank you.

Click to expand...

In accordance with docket item #16, the Court holds that Vernicia has legally represented the Defendant up to the filing of docket item #34.

The Public Defender @Vernicia is hereby relieved from their duties in this case and is thanked very much for her time and efforts.
 
Your Honor,

In my capacity as Vice President of the Commonwealth of Redmont, I respectfully request permission to file an amicus brief regarding the application of Disturbing the Peace to ordinary court proceedings.
 
Franciscus said:
Your Honor,

In my capacity as Vice President of the Commonwealth of Redmont, I respectfully request permission to file an amicus brief regarding the application of Disturbing the Peace to ordinary court proceedings.
Click to expand...

You may do so within 24 hours.
 

Brief


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Amicus Curiae Brief - Vice President Multiman155

Your Honor:

I write this brief regarding the attempted novel application in of the Criminal Code to court proceedings, as is present in Post No. 37. The post, made by the Plaintiff, alleges that the Commonwealth commits the crime of Disturbing the Peace (CCA Part V, Section 1), as the Plaintiff is "not interested in this case, and further pursuance by the courts/plaintiff is considered harassment". The Office of the Vice President is deeply concerned that application of the Plaintiff's proposed rule would have adverse affects throughout the Commonwealth and would strike down the core of the adversarial legal system.

The issue presented here is simple: Does the Court's (or prosecution's) continuation of a case where the Defendant declares a lack of interest/a desire for the case to go away constitute Disturbing the Peace under the Criminal Code Act?

Disturbing the Peace requires that behavior be disorderly to sustain a charge.​

First, we must consider the rule to apply. The relevant statutory definition states:
A person commits an offence if the person:
(a) engages in disorderly behavior toward an individual or group that causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress.
Click to expand...

Rephrasing this, the elements of the crime are as follows:
  1. A behavior is directed towards an individual or group;
  2. That behavior is disorderly;
  3. That behavior is likely to cause, or actually causes, any of the following:
    1. Harassment;
    2. Alarm; or
    3. Distress.
One crux here is that the relevant criminal behavior must be "disorderly" in nature. But what does "disorderly" mean?

Disorderly behavior involves or contributes to the breakdowns of peaceful and law-abiding behavior.​

Tracing through the judicial history of the Commonwealth of Redmont, we find some that the Courts have placed limits as to what constitutes disorderly behavior. We also see cases in which disorderly behavior has been found by a Court, and we find that there appears to be a theme of violence and/or unprovoked verbal aggression coming through them:
  1. In Commonwealth of Redmont v. Hzxpy and N3ghtmare [2021] FCR 116, the Federal Court noted that patient conversation and sending of a message from oneself to another did not constitute disorderly behavior ("The court does not believe that the conversation between N3ghtmare and KingComicz was disorderly, this was a patient conversation between the two. This court also fails to see how one message to a person can be classified as disorderly behavior; one private message to another player does not mean disorderly behavior.").
  2. smokeyybunnyyy V. GisUsAQuiche [2023] FCR 89 (finding liability arising from disorderly behaviors of murder, stalking, mockery after murdering);
  3. snow_crp v. FearlessNacktmul [2025] DCR 33 (finding liability arising from disorderly behavior involving the sending of obscene messages, racially charged messages, repeated insults);
  4. JediAJMan v. FoniWeiss [2023] DCR 29 (finding liability arising from disorderly behavior of repeated murders); and
  5. Toadking v. Culls [2025] DCR 82 (finding liability arising from disorderly behavior involving public, targeted, and unwanted physical contact and verbal fixation with and on the Plaintiff).
What is clear from this is simple: concluding that "disorderly behavior" has occurred requires a finding of some violation of the natural right to peace, or alternatively some breakdown in law-abiding behavior on behalf of the offending party.

A lawful filing of a criminal prosecution is not "disorderly" within the meaning of the law.​

The question then becomes: in light of Common law, is the continuation of a lawsuit by prosecution or plaintiff against Defendant's wishes "disorderly"? The Office of the Vice President opines in the negative.

The Department of Justice has the lawful duty of "Investigating and prosecuting on behalf of the Federal Government" (Executive Standards Act, Section 8(1)(b)). In executing this lawful duty, the Department of Justice files criminal prosecutions against criminal defendants, who face punishments if found guilty for indictable crimes the commit at trial (c.f.: Criminal Code Act Part I, Section 6(3)(d)).

The very nature of an adversarial system is that the defendant is in jeopardy when facing a trial. Most defendants would wish that a case would go away and that the Plaintiff would file nolle prosecui. The defendant may even find the potential for liability distressing, and not want to have a criminal prosecution against them. But (provided that a case is not simply frivolous) the Office of the Vice President fails to see why such filings would constitute involvement with or contribution to law-breaking behavior and/or a natural right to peace.

The alternative here, holding that lawful criminal prosecutions continued against a defendant's wishes are "disorderly behavior", would be absurd. The Commonwealth would be deprived of the ability to make orderly filings in this Court and pursue lawful means in order to hold criminals accountable when criminals do not want a prosecution against them to continue. The central point of prosecuting crimes and seeking punishments in court is to forcibly bring criminals to justice.

The Office of the Vice President Prays for the Court to reject the Plaintiff's proposed rule.​

Consistent with the principles of natural justice and common law (c.f.: Criminal Code Act Part I, Section 1(1)), and in line with the principle that the Court ought avoid construing provisions in a manner that produces absurd, unjust, or unintended results (c.f.: Criminal Code Act Part I, Section 2(1)), the Office of the Vice President prays that the Court reject the Plaintiff's proposed rule. Any rule that would prohibit criminal filings by the Commonwealth to continue after a Defendant declares a lack of interest in a case and/or desire to see a case be simply gone would substantially hamper criminal prosecution, lead to absurd results, and prevent the Commonwealth from pursuing justice.

 
EatYourGreens said:
The defense is withdrawing from the case and will not accept any punishment. Thank you.
Click to expand...
EatYourGreens said:
"1 - Disturbing the Peace
Offence Type: Indictable
Penalty: Up to 100 Penalty Units; up to 60 minutes imprisonment
A person commits an offence if the person:
(a) engages in disorderly behavior toward an individual or group that causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress."

I've made it clear I am not interested in this case, and further pursuance by the courts/plaintiff is considered harassment. By law, this would be considered disturbing the peace.
Click to expand...
EatYourGreens said:
I motion to adjourn.
Click to expand...
ameslap said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Objection - Breach of Procedure

I think this goes without saying, but this is out of place... unless one of these posts happen to be their opening statement I guess.

Thank you.

Click to expand...


Court Order


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
COURT ORDER

The Court has reviewed the Defendant's recent filings. They are improper, legally baseless, and constitute an abuse of this Court's process.

First, a party does not unilaterally "withdraw from a case", declare themselves immune from punishment, or redefine lawful court proceedings as "harassment". Such assertions have no legal effect. Jurisdiction is vested in the Court, and participation is not optional.

Second, the Defendant's attempt to cite an alleged offence of "Disturbing the Peace" against the Court or the Commonwealth party is frivolous. Lawful judicial proceedings, including continued prosecution and court orders, do not and cannot constitute harassment or criminal conduct. The Court, ruling in line with the Amicus Brief, rejects this argument in its entirety.

WHEREFORE, it is ORDERED that:

  1. The Commonwealth's objection is SUSTAINED.
  2. The Defendant's purported "withdrawal", assertions of non-acceptance of punishment, and claims of harassment are DENIED and STRICKEN from the record.
  3. The Defendant’s motion to adjourn is DENIED.
  4. The Defendant is ORDERED TO CEASE AND DESIST from filing further frivolous, obstructive, or non-responsive filings in this matter.
  5. Any future filings by the Defendant must be relevant, procedurally proper, and grounded in applicable law. Filings that fail to meet this standard may be summarily struck without further notice.
The Defendant is hereby warned that any continued abuse of the Court’s process, refusal to comply with orders, or the filing of further filings of this nature will result in the liberal exercise of the Court's contempt powers. This may include fines of up to R$5,000 and 10 minutes of imprisonment per offence, as well as the imposition of conduct strikes on the Defendant.

SO ORDERED,
Magistrate Venne.

 
@EatYourGreens you have 72 hours to file an Opening Statement or to notify the Court that you do not wish to file one.
 

Motion


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

Your honor,

The Commonwealth agrees with the following (although not proper) motion proposed by the Defendant.

EatYourGreens said:
I motion to adjourn.
Click to expand...
We request summary judgement given all the facts, evidence, and arguments that have been given this far.

We also cite [2025] FCR 90, which while different, gives us a similar perspective. If the Defendant does not wish to continue this case, then the Commonwealth will not force them to do so, and as such we believe that Summary Judgement is appropriate.

Thank you.

 
I have transferred the money out of my account to various places. I am willing to take the financial penalty, as I do not have the money to pay it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
EatYourGreens said:
😂😂
Click to expand...

This message is STRUCK. You are hereby held in Contempt of Court for (1) disobeying the Court Order in docket entry #44 and (2) engaging in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice. You will be fined $2,000 and imprisoned for 10 minutes.

SO ORDERED,
Magistrate Venne.
 
EatYourGreens said:
I have transferred the money out of my account to various places. I am willing to take the financial penalty, as I do not have the money to pay it.
Click to expand...

This message is STRUCK. You are hereby held in Contempt of Court for (1) disobeying the Court Order in docket entry #44 and (2) engaging in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice. You will be fined $4,000 and imprisoned for 10 minutes.

SO ORDERED,
Magistrate Venne.
 
EatYourGreens said:
Off the record, I am furious that Vennefly did not abide by the bribe I offered to them.
Click to expand...

This message is STRUCK. You are hereby held in Contempt of Court for (1) disobeying the Court Order in docket entry #44 and (2) engaging in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice. You will be fined $5,000 and imprisoned for 10 minutes. You will also be issued one Conduct Strike.

SO ORDERED,
Magistrate Venne.
 
ameslap said:

Motion


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

Your honor,

The Commonwealth agrees with the following (although not proper) motion proposed by the Defendant.

We request summary judgement given all the facts, evidence, and arguments that have been given this far.

We also cite [2025] FCR 90, which while different, gives us a similar perspective. If the Defendant does not wish to continue this case, then the Commonwealth will not force them to do so, and as such we believe that Summary Judgement is appropriate.

Thank you.

Click to expand...

GRANTED. Court is in Recess pending Summary Judgement.
 
Your honor, in the spirit of the New Year, I ask for forgiveness. Let's wipe the slate clean in regards to the fines, and finish up this open-and-shut case.
 
Greetings to all parties.

Due to the unfortunate departure of (Frmr.) Magistrate Vennefly from the District Court, I will be taking over this case for verdict. Apologies for the wait you have sustained so far, I endeavour to present a proper ruling soon.

Yours Truly,
Magistrate Lenore
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top