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.

 

[CreeperTD]

The deadline to submit any and all witness question objections has passed. The Court will review all pending objections, rule on them, and then issue summons.

 

[CreeperTD]

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.

Objection denied as moot. The evidence was relating to a request for sanctions, which the court subsequently disregarded. It has no bearing on the case at hand, but it must remain on the court record.

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.

Objection sustained in part. The Court does not see how asking question 3 to witness zPokeBr_ is relevant to the case, as they simply reported the farm to the government, they were not responsible for filing a warrant or prosecuting this case. The Court strikes question 2 to OwnedBlock for calling for a conclusion, and orders the Defense to amend Question 1 to ask, instead, OwnedBlock to identify the plants to the best of his ability.

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.

Objection sustained. Witness questioning is not a time for the Defense to try and force opposing counsel to admit to misconduct, which is entirely irrelevant to the case at hand, as is the recently passed Act of Congress. These questions are struck.

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.

Objection sustained in part.The question shall be amended to what Defense proposed, that being "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.

Objection overruled. The Defense has explained the question's relevance to their argument.

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.

Objection sustained. The Defense shall amend the question to what they proposed, namely "As of September 29, 2026, did you retain any ownership over C612 or its seventh-floor basement? If so, please explain."

Defense Counselor, please notify the Court when you have edited your list of witness questions to reflect what has been ordered above.

 

[ameslap]

Objection denied as moot. The evidence was relating to a request for sanctions, which the court subsequently disregarded. It has no bearing on the case at hand, but it must remain on the court record.

Objection sustained in part. The Court does not see how asking question 3 to witness zPokeBr_ is relevant to the case, as they simply reported the farm to the government, they were not responsible for filing a warrant or prosecuting this case. The Court strikes question 2 to OwnedBlock for calling for a conclusion, and orders the Defense to amend Question 1 to ask, instead, OwnedBlock to identify the plants to the best of his ability.

Objection sustained. Witness questioning is not a time for the Defense to try and force opposing counsel to admit to misconduct, which is entirely irrelevant to the case at hand, as is the recently passed Act of Congress. These questions are struck.

Objection sustained in part.The question shall be amended to what Defense proposed, that being "Do you have personal knowledge of who constructed the alleged plantation in the 7th floor basement of C612?"

Objection overruled. The Defense has explained the question's relevance to their argument.

Objection sustained. The Defense shall amend the question to what they proposed, namely "As of September 29, 2026, did you retain any ownership over C612 or its seventh-floor basement? If so, please explain."

Defense Counselor, please notify the Court when you have edited your list of witness questions to reflect what has been ordered above.

Do you want me to edit the original list or submit a new post with the updates?

 

[CreeperTD]

Do you want me to edit the original list or submit a new post with the updates?

Edit the original, please.

 

[ameslap]

This is complete your Honor.

Objection denied as moot. The evidence was relating to a request for sanctions, which the court subsequently disregarded. It has no bearing on the case at hand, but it must remain on the court record.

Objection sustained in part. The Court does not see how asking question 3 to witness zPokeBr_ is relevant to the case, as they simply reported the farm to the government, they were not responsible for filing a warrant or prosecuting this case. The Court strikes question 2 to OwnedBlock for calling for a conclusion, and orders the Defense to amend Question 1 to ask, instead, OwnedBlock to identify the plants to the best of his ability.

Objection sustained. Witness questioning is not a time for the Defense to try and force opposing counsel to admit to misconduct, which is entirely irrelevant to the case at hand, as is the recently passed Act of Congress. These questions are struck.

Objection sustained in part.The question shall be amended to what Defense proposed, that being "Do you have personal knowledge of who constructed the alleged plantation in the 7th floor basement of C612?"

Objection overruled. The Defense has explained the question's relevance to their argument.

Objection sustained. The Defense shall amend the question to what they proposed, namely "As of September 29, 2026, did you retain any ownership over C612 or its seventh-floor basement? If so, please explain."

Defense Counselor, please notify the Court when you have edited your list of witness questions to reflect what has been ordered above.

 

[CreeperTD]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WITNESS SUMMONS

@OwnedBlock, zPokebr_ (@Poker), and @IgnitedTnT are hereby commanded to appear as witnesses before the Federal Court in the case of Commonwealth v. .SteelBirch6844 [2026] FCR 94.

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in the witness being held in Contempt of Court.

So Ordered.

 

[OwnedBlock]

Present, your Honor.

Not to clutter this docket further, I'll only respond to question 1, as I had filed answers to all of the other questions earlier:
1. Technically the answer is yes, but given that responding as such is probably not responsive enough, so I'll identify the plants to the best of my ability, given these 3 pictures devoid of other context: D-001 shows either a poppy or a copium pod; D-002 shows a cornflower and D-003 shows either an allium or a morning glory plant.

 

[IgnitedTnT]

Present your honor

 

[CreeperTD]

To hopefully expedite proceedings, the Court shall pose the Defense’s questions to the witness that is now present. Witness IgnitedTNT is ordered to answer the questions below, numbering their answers to correspond to each question. Witness has 24 hours to do so.

1. What is your relationship to C612 before September 27, 2026?

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

3. What was the purpose of transferring C612 to SteelBirch6844?

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

In addition, both parties may treat witness OwnedBlock as having answered his questions, and may follow that up as necessary within the previously set out timeline.

 

[IgnitedTnT]

1. We're unconsentually informally married & related by circumstances. Steelbirch works for me for my non-profit The Legacy Foundation as director at the time.

2. I do not

3. It was a donation to The Legacy Foundation (the plot is not her personal property, but the foundation's), she was going to turn it into a HQ or University, something to advance the greater good.

4. Only in regards that I own the The Legacy Foundation to which the property was donated, but I do not consider that my own ownership, but ownership of the foundation, of which the procceeds (if sold) would go back to the foundation.

 

[CreeperTD]

1. We're unconsentually informally married & related by circumstances. Steelbirch works for me for my non-profit The Legacy Foundation as director at the time.

2. I do not

3. It was a donation to The Legacy Foundation (the plot is not her personal property, but the foundation's), she was going to turn it into a HQ or University, something to advance the greater good.

4. Only in regards that I own the The Legacy Foundation to which the property was donated, but I do not consider that my own ownership, but ownership of the foundation, of which the procceeds (if sold) would go back to the foundation.

The court believes that you misunderstood question 1; the question was about your relation to the plot, not the Defendant.

 

[IgnitedTnT]

The court would be correct in that assumption.

1. My relationship to C612 is that I bought it for development purposes, that development never came to fruition and I donated it to the Legacy Foundation managed by Steel and owned by me

 

[Poker]

Present

 

[OwnedBlock]

Your Honor, I am unable to continue pursuing this court case, as my employment at Department of Justice got terminated without notice. I request that Attorney General be informed of this case and assign proper Commonwealth representation to it.

 

[CreeperTD]

@Superwoops in the interest of fairness and the judicial economy, I give the Commonwealth 48 hours to assign a new prosecutor to this case before it continues further. I believe this best for the proper administration of justice.

 

[CreeperTD]

In the meantime, the Court orders witness zPokebr_ to answer the below questions. You have 24 hours. Whenever a Prosecutor is assigned, they will have their allotted time to submit cross examination questions, to file objections, etc.

1. When did you first disover the alleged plantation in the 7th floor basement of C612?

2. What methods do you use to identify illicit plants or items?

5. Did you personally witness SteelBirch6844 planting, harvesting, or maintaining any illicit plants?

 

[Poker]

Thanks for letting me know, Your Honor.

1. I don't remember the exact date. But, it was in the same day (and hour?) I made the report present in P-005.
2. Buff plants can be interacted by non-plot owners. So, I click on them and see their drops.
5. If by “maintaining” you mean having such a plantation on a plot registered under the name, then yes.

 

[CreeperTD]

The Court notes that the time for any questions to the first two witnesses (OwnedBlock and IgnitedTNT) has elapsed; as such both witnesses are dismissed from the Court. Thank you for your punctuality and cooperation.

 

[DETECTIVHOLMES]

@Superwoops in the interest of fairness and the judicial economy, I give the Commonwealth 48 hours to assign a new prosecutor to this case before it continues further. I believe this best for the proper administration of justice.

I will take it from here, we may continue, Your Honour.

 

[CreeperTD]

The period allotted for follow-up questions and cross examination has passed. zPokebr_ is dismissed from the Court, thank you for your time. The Commonwealth now has 72 hours to submit a Closing Statement.

 

[ameslap]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law

Your Honor,
The Defense moves for Judgment as a Matter of Law under Rule 9.2.

Previously, the Court denied the Defense's Rule 5.5 motion to dismiss, explaining that the legal arguments should be considered after witness testimony. That testimony is now complete. The Commonwealth has had every opportunity to present its evidence, and witnesses have confirmed that the investigation did not establish who actually grew the alleged illicit substances.

The Defense submits that there is no legally sufficient basis to convict the Defendant.

I. The Commonwealth has Failed to Establish Growing
Criminal Code Part VI, Section 5(c) criminalizes an individual who:

Grows illicit substances on a plot registered to their name.

The Defendant is charged with growing substances, not merely possessing or retaining them.

In Post #102, Former Prosecutor OwnedBlock provided the following answers under questioning:

• When were the plants planted? No evidence establishing when.
• Who constructed the plantation? No evidence establishing who.
• What evidence establishes cultivation by SteelBirch after acquiring C612? "None as such."

The prosecutor repeatedly explained that the Commonwealth's theory was based on possession and retention, and therefore did not require evidence of cultivation.

These are not simply gaps, they are admissions made by the Commonwealth.

II. The Witnesses Have Not Established the Charged Conduct
In Post #122, zPokebr_ was asked whether they personally witnessed SteelBirch planting, harvesting or maintaining illicit plants.

Thather than identifying an act of cultivation, they explained that they considered having a plantation on a plot registered to them to constitute maintaining it.

Likewise, IgnitedTnT testified in Posts #115 and #117 that he did not know who constructed the plantation and that C612 was donated to the Legacy Foundation, owned by IgnitedTnT and managed by SteelBirch.

The evidence presented establishes the alleged plantation's existence and its location. It does not establish that SteelBirch planted, cultivated, or otherwise participated in growing the substances.

The Commonwealth is asking the Court to infer a criminal offense from property registration alone.

III. Possession is Not Production
The Criminal Code distinguishes between possession and production.

Part VI, Sections 1 and 2 address Illicit Substance Possession. Section 5 separately addresses Illicit Substance Production.

These are different offenses with different legal requirements.

If retaining an existing plantation were automatically sufficient to establish growing, then the distinction between possessing illicit substances and producing them would be weakened.

The Commonwealth's interpretation would permit a person to be convicted of production simply because plants were discovered on a plot registered to their name, even where no evidence establishes their involvement in cultivation.

The Criminal Code does not expressly establish such a presumption.

Under Part I, Section 3 of the Criminal Code, criminal offenses must be codified. The Court should not expand the meaning of one offense to substitute for conduct covered by another.

The Commonwealth must prove the conduct prohibited by Section 5(c), not simply circumstances that might suggest possession.

IV. The Burden of Proof Has Not Been Met
Under the Judicial Standards Act, Part II, Sections 2 and 3, the Commonwealth bears the burden of proving criminal charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

That burden has not shifted to SteelBirch to explain who planted the alleged substances or how they came to be present.

The Commonwealth has introduced photographs, property records, and evidence of alleged item interactions. However, none independently establishes that SteelBirch engaged in growing the substances.

The prosecution's interpretation attempts to fill that missing element by treating ownership and retention as cultivation.

Respectfully, an inference of possession cannot automatically become proof of production.

Rule 9.2 permits the Court to enter judgment when an issue has been fully heard, and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for the opposing party to prevail.

The existence of plants is not, by itself, proof of who grew them.

Thank you,
Ameslap

 

[CreeperTD]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law

Your Honor,
The Defense moves for Judgment as a Matter of Law under Rule 9.2.

Previously, the Court denied the Defense's Rule 5.5 motion to dismiss, explaining that the legal arguments should be considered after witness testimony. That testimony is now complete. The Commonwealth has had every opportunity to present its evidence, and witnesses have confirmed that the investigation did not establish who actually grew the alleged illicit substances.

The Defense submits that there is no legally sufficient basis to convict the Defendant.

I. The Commonwealth has Failed to Establish Growing
Criminal Code Part VI, Section 5(c) criminalizes an individual who:

The Defendant is charged with growing substances, not merely possessing or retaining them.

In Post #102, Former Prosecutor OwnedBlock provided the following answers under questioning:

• When were the plants planted? No evidence establishing when.
• Who constructed the plantation? No evidence establishing who.
• What evidence establishes cultivation by SteelBirch after acquiring C612? "None as such."

The prosecutor repeatedly explained that the Commonwealth's theory was based on possession and retention, and therefore did not require evidence of cultivation.

These are not simply gaps, they are admissions made by the Commonwealth.

II. The Witnesses Have Not Established the Charged Conduct
In Post #122, zPokebr_ was asked whether they personally witnessed SteelBirch planting, harvesting or maintaining illicit plants.

Thather than identifying an act of cultivation, they explained that they considered having a plantation on a plot registered to them to constitute maintaining it.

Likewise, IgnitedTnT testified in Posts #115 and #117 that he did not know who constructed the plantation and that C612 was donated to the Legacy Foundation, owned by IgnitedTnT and managed by SteelBirch.

The evidence presented establishes the alleged plantation's existence and its location. It does not establish that SteelBirch planted, cultivated, or otherwise participated in growing the substances.

The Commonwealth is asking the Court to infer a criminal offense from property registration alone.

III. Possession is Not Production
The Criminal Code distinguishes between possession and production.

Part VI, Sections 1 and 2 address Illicit Substance Possession. Section 5 separately addresses Illicit Substance Production.

These are different offenses with different legal requirements.

If retaining an existing plantation were automatically sufficient to establish growing, then the distinction between possessing illicit substances and producing them would be weakened.

The Commonwealth's interpretation would permit a person to be convicted of production simply because plants were discovered on a plot registered to their name, even where no evidence establishes their involvement in cultivation.

The Criminal Code does not expressly establish such a presumption.

Under Part I, Section 3 of the Criminal Code, criminal offenses must be codified. The Court should not expand the meaning of one offense to substitute for conduct covered by another.

The Commonwealth must prove the conduct prohibited by Section 5(c), not simply circumstances that might suggest possession.

IV. The Burden of Proof Has Not Been Met
Under the Judicial Standards Act, Part II, Sections 2 and 3, the Commonwealth bears the burden of proving criminal charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

That burden has not shifted to SteelBirch to explain who planted the alleged substances or how they came to be present.

The Commonwealth has introduced photographs, property records, and evidence of alleged item interactions. However, none independently establishes that SteelBirch engaged in growing the substances.

The prosecution's interpretation attempts to fill that missing element by treating ownership and retention as cultivation.

Respectfully, an inference of possession cannot automatically become proof of production.

Rule 9.2 permits the Court to enter judgment when an issue has been fully heard, and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for the opposing party to prevail.

The existence of plants is not, by itself, proof of who grew them.

Thank you,
Ameslap

Motion denied, we are nearly at the end of proceedings and there is no reason for Closing Statements to not be filed at this time.