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

[CreeperTD]

The Court does not believe any further action by it is required at this time. Defense has 24 hours to respond to the above objections, if they so choose.

 

[OwnedBlock]

3. What evidence did your investigation obtain establishing when the alleged plants were originally planted?

None as such. The Commonwealth's theory is of possession/retention, thus no evidence of the plants being planted was required.

4. Did your investigation establish who constructed the plantation's supporting blocks, water, and lighting?

No. The Commonwealth's theory is of possession/retention, thus no evidence of who constructed the plantation's supporting blocks, water, and lighting.

5. Did you personally witness or identify any witness who observed SteelBirch6844 planting, harvesting, or maintaining the allged illicit plants?

Both I and the original reporter of the ticket had observed them as maintaining the plants by keeping them in their basement.

6. What specific evidence establishes that SteelBirch6844 engaged in cultivation after acquiring C612?

None as such. The Commonwealth's theory is of possession/retention, thus no evidence of SteelBirch6844 being engaged in cultivation was required.

7. Staff confirmed that CoreProtect can distinguish ordinary kelp from custom Coco Leaves. What specific evidence establishes that the items in P-007 were Coco Leaves?

As stated in the prosecution's opening statement, the CoreProtect record is consistent with staff seizure. It'd be impossible for anyone to put items into an already filled furnace nor take items out of an empty furnace, thus by the theory that items that, in reverse chronological order, were taken out by paper_cute were coco leaves (per his own assertion), there had been no intermediate item deposits/withdrawals, and plaintiff had put items in, the items put in by plaintiff must have been the ones taken out by paper_cute. Assuming the items had not magically transformed into coco leaves (which is a fair assumption), the rest is speculation as to why this seemingly illogical situation had occured, but this specific logic reasoning is not in doubt. I would rather not speculate, so as to not fall afoul of speculation objections.

I reserve my right not to respond to questions 1, 2, 8 and 9 unless the pending objections are overruled.

 

[CreeperTD]

Witnesses have not yet been summoned, so there’s no need to answer the questions as of yet… the Court will not strike the above post, but it is out of turn.