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.

 

[ameslap]

Response to objections:

Objection​

OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE
Your Honor, the Commonwealth objects to the addition of D-004 and D-005 into the evidence record on grounds of improper evidence - this is an out-of-discovery submission of evidence.

The prosecution requests for the evidence to be struck from the record.

These communications occurred after discovery ended and could not have been submitted earlier. Additionally, they are not being offered to establish the Defendant's guilt or innocence; they are to document and show proof of the conduct that the Defense is requesting sanctions for.

The Court has allowed the Prosecution to respond to the allegations, excluding the communications themselves while considering that the explanation would prevent the Court from examining the actual conduct at issue.

Objection​

OBJECTION - AMBIGUOUS
Your Honor, the Commonwealth objects to question 3 to zPokeBr_ and question 1 and 2 to OwnedBlock on grounds of the request being ambiguous, as the neither the plant hitboxes nor a "targeted block" record is shown to enable determination in terms of whether a given graphic is of an entity or a block. This is a rather key factor of analysis of a standalone plant devoid of other context (as submitted in D-001, D-002, D-003), as buff plants are implemented by a server plugin as entities.

The prosecution requests for the request for questions as such to be denied.

The questions ask witnesses to identify the plants depicted in D-001, D-002, and D-003 and explain their reasoning.

The Prosecution argues that photographs do not provide enough information to distinguish vanilla plants from custom plants. However, the Prosecution itself is asking the Court to rely on photographic evidence to establish that illicit substances were present!

It is contradictory for the Prosecution to rely on photographs to support its allegations while arguing that the Defense cannot question witnesses about what photographs actually establish.

If the witnesses cannot identify the plants from the photos, they are free to say so. However, that raises an important question about how the Prosecution expects the Court to identify illicit substances from its own photographic evidence.

Objection​

OBJECTION - RELEVANCE
Your Honor, the Commonwealth objects to question 8 and 9 to OwnedBlock. This only serves to discuss the bill that Your Honor had just stated is irrelevant to his proceeding, and, furthermore, were made as jokes.

The prosecution requests for the request for questions as such to be denied.

We are willing to retract questions 8 and 9.

Objection​

OBJECTION - SPECULATION, FOUNDATION
Your Honor, the Commonwealth objects to question 2 to IgnitedTnT. This question asks the witness to speculate on whether they had constructed the plantation - no other evidence showing that they had been related to the construction has been submitted.

The prosecution requests for the request for this question to be denied.

The purpose of this question is to establish if the owner of the plot has personal knowledge of who constructed the plantation. The Defense agrees that the witness should not speculate and is willing to clarify the question:

Do you have personal knowledge of who constructed the alleged plantation in the 7th floor basement of C612?

Objection​

OBJECTION - RELEVANCE
Your Honor, the Commonwealth objects to question 3 to IgnitedTnT. The prosecution does not see how the reason for the transfer is relevant to this case.

The prosecution requests for the request for this question to be denied.

The reason for transferring C612 is relevant to establishing the history, ownership, and control of the property.

The Defendant acquired C612 shortly before the alleged offense was discovered. The circumstances of that transfer may help establish whether the plantation existed before the Defendant acquired the property.

The question is directly related to the Defense's argument that ownership alone does not establish who cultivated the alleged plants.

Objection​

OBJECTION - AMBIGUOUS
Your Honor, the Commonwealth objects to question 4 to IgnitedTnT. What kind of access does the defense mean, being added to the plot, simply being able to enter it? Would having access to one specific subregion count?

The prosecution requests for the request for this question to be denied, permitting defense to refile this question in a more clear manner.

The Commonwealth's entire argument relies heavily on the Defendant's ownership of C612. However, the Defense has previously raised evidence suggesting that IgnitedTnT retained ownership or control of the property. The Defense seeks to establish who actually owned the property at the time of the alleged offense.

This question is not ambiguous in its purpose. It directly concerns an element of the charge.

However, if the Court requires clarification, the Defense is willing to rephrase:

As of September 29, 2026, did you retain any ownership over C612 or its seventh-floor basement? If so, please explain.

---

Spoiler

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Objection - Improper Evidence
The Prosecution states that this screenshot is not being formally entered into evidence, yet relies on it to justify requesting sanctions against myself.

Furthermore, there is an important distinction between the communications submitted by each party.

The Defense's screenshots document statements made directly by the prosecutor to a represented criminal defendant concerning potential future criminal liability.

The Prosecution's screenshot concerns a casual discussion between opposing attorneys about legal arguments.

These are not equivalent circumstances.

The Defense also notes that the Prosecution's request to sanction Defense Counsel arose only after the Defense requested sanctions against the prosecutor.

Rather than identifying how Defense Counsel interfered with the administration of justice, the Prosecution appears to be requesting equal punishment solely because the Defense raised allegations of misconduct.

Thank you,
Ameslap

 

[CreeperTD]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Objection - Improper Evidence
The Prosecution states that this screenshot is not being formally entered into evidence, yet relies on it to justify requesting sanctions against myself.

Furthermore, there is an important distinction between the communications submitted by each party.

The Defense's screenshots document statements made directly by the prosecutor to a represented criminal defendant concerning potential future criminal liability.

The Prosecution's screenshot concerns a casual discussion between opposing attorneys about legal arguments.

These are not equivalent circumstances.

The Defense also notes that the Prosecution's request to sanction Defense Counsel arose only after the Defense requested sanctions against the prosecutor.

Rather than identifying how Defense Counsel interfered with the administration of justice, the Prosecution appears to be requesting equal punishment solely because the Defense raised allegations of misconduct.

Thank you,
Ameslap

Objection overruled as moot. The Court does not intend to levy sanctions against either councillor at this time, the objected to evidence is irrelevant.