Lawsuit: Pending Commonwealth of Redmont v. wttn2c [2026] DCR 75

[AmityBlamity]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION


The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

wttn2c
Defendant

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

On February 11th, 2026, Vennefly was acting in his official capacity as a Detective within the Department of Homeland Security and responding to a reported murder that took place within the city limits of Reveille. Upon arriving to C093, Detective Vennefly began processing the murder case blues, but was attacked and murdered by wttn2c. Later, Detective Vennefly responded to another murder scene between spawn and the Congress building within the Reveille city limits. As Detective Vennefly was processing this murder scene, player wttn2c attacked Detective Vennefly with a knockback item, attempting to prevent him from collecting the murder clues from the scene.

I. PARTIES
1. Wttn2c (Defendant)
2. Commonwealth of Redmont (Prosecution)

II. FACTS
1. Vennefly is a Detective within the Department of Homeland Security (P-001)
2. On or about the February 11th, 2026, Vennefly accepted a case to investigate a murder at C093 (P-002).
3. Upon arriving at the crime scene, Vennefly was attacked and murdered bywttn2c (P-002).
4. Later, Detective Vennefly investigated a murder scene between spawn and the Congress building (P-003).
5. While processing the scene, wttn2c attacked Detective Vennefly with a knockback item, attempting to prevent him from collecting the murder clues (P-003).
6. This shows a clear pattern of obstruction of justice.


III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. 2 Counts of Obstruction of Justice for willfully impeding the process of justice by harming an officer attempting to conduct an arrest. At the time, the Miscellaneous Offenses Act was still in force, and thus the relevant offense exists under this act.

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. 20 minutes in jail and a $150 fine for the first offense, and 40 minutes in jail and $300 fine for the second offense.


Evidence List:

Spoiler: P-001: Screenshot of Vennefly's jobs

Spoiler: P-002 - Video of Vennefly investigating C093

P-002.mov

drive.google.com

Spoiler: P-003 - Video of Vennefly getting knocked at spawn

P-003.mov

drive.google.com

Witness List:
1. Vennefly (Detective)

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.

Signed,
Amity Justice

DATED: This 11th day of June, 2026

 

[Kaiserin_]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER - Order to Show Cause

The Court takes notice that, according to the prosecution, the offence charged is over a year old. The statute of limitations under both the CCA and the previous Standardized Criminal Code Act is 4 months, or 2 months since becoming aware of the offence.

The Court therefore orders the prosecution to provide either:

1. Evidence that the offence in question was discovered no earlier than 2 months ago; or,
2. Some other reason under the law why this case should not be dismissed under Rule 5.10.

If a closed court sidebar must be opened to avoid the release of sensitive information, please request one.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER - Order to Show Cause

The Court takes notice that, according to the prosecution, the offence charged is over a year old. The statute of limitations under both the CCA and the previous Standardized Criminal Code Act is 4 months, or 2 months since becoming aware of the offence.

The Court therefore orders the prosecution to provide either:

1. Evidence that the offence in question was discovered no earlier than 2 months ago; or,
2. Some other reason under the law why this case should not be dismissed under Rule 5.10.

If a closed court sidebar must be opened to avoid the release of sensitive information, please request one.

Your Honour,

I'd like to formerly apologize. The crime took place on February 11, 2026, not 2025. Placing us within the 4 months permitted by the SoL. With your permission, I would like to amend the complaint to reflect the correct date.

 

[Kaiserin_]

Your Honour,

I'd like to formerly apologize. The crime took place on February 11, 2026, not 2025. Placing us within the 4 months permitted by the SoL. With your permission, I would like to amend the complaint to reflect the correct date.

You may. Summons will be issued momentarily.

 

[Kaiserin_]

Writ of Summons

@wttn2c is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Commonwealth of Redmont v. wttn2c [2026] DCR 75.

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.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Writ of Summons

@wttn2c is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Commonwealth of Redmont v. wttn2c [2026] DCR 75.

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.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

Your Honour, the defendant has failed to appear. However, he has been active in the past 30 days. I humbly request the Court proceed with Default Judgement.

Spoiler: Playtime

 

[Kaiserin_]

A public defender will be called.

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honor,

I have assigned @KeyChunky321

 

[KeyChunky321]

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

The defense moves to dismiss the complaint in this case and, in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The Prosecution alleges obstruction of justice. This requires an intentional act ("willfully"); in other words, the defendant must have been aware that Vennefly was on duty as a detective. This is not possible, as is evident from the congressional debate on the Miscellaneous Offenses Act. The defense cites the statement made by former Senator MrFluffy2U94: “I voted ‘nay’ because detectives do not publicly disclose that they are working on a case. I feel that a first-offense warning is reasonable since it is impossible to distinguish between a detective working on a case and a detective who is off duty.”

Here, the phrase “impossible to distinguish” is the key element. The defendant, wttn2c, could not have known that Vennefly was on duty as a detective, meaning the act of the attack was no longer willful and therefore no longer constitutes Obstruction of justice.

Spoiler: Source of the qoute

DATED: This 19th day of June 2026

 

[Kaiserin_]

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

The defense moves to dismiss the complaint in this case and, in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The Prosecution alleges obstruction of justice. This requires an intentional act ("willfully"); in other words, the defendant must have been aware that Vennefly was on duty as a detective. This is not possible, as is evident from the congressional debate on the Miscellaneous Offenses Act. The defense cites the statement made by former Senator MrFluffy2U94: “I voted ‘nay’ because detectives do not publicly disclose that they are working on a case. I feel that a first-offense warning is reasonable since it is impossible to distinguish between a detective working on a case and a detective who is off duty.”

Here, the phrase “impossible to distinguish” is the key element. The defendant, wttn2c, could not have known that Vennefly was on duty as a detective, meaning the act of the attack was no longer willful and therefore no longer constitutes Obstruction of justice.

Spoiler: Source of the qoute

View attachment 86908

DATED: This 19th day of June 2026

Not granted. You've failed to cite a rule under which this case can be dismissed, and I cannot identify one through which I could grant this. This is therefore a defence, not a valid reason for dismissal. Further, the bulk of your argument seems to come from congressional discussion from an individual whose opinion was not shared by the author or the majority of Congress, given that the bill did, in fact, pass.

You have 48 hours to produce a plea.

 

[KeyChunky321]

Plea

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
PLEA
The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

wttn2c
Defendant


I. ENTRY OF PLEA
1. As to Count I of Obstruction of Justice, the Defendant pleads NO CONTEST
2. As to Count II of Obstruction of Justice, the Defendant pleads 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 20th day of June 2026

Motion

MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT II

The Defence respectfully moves to dismiss Count II pursuant to Rule 5.3 and Rule 5.5 - Lack of Claim.

1. Count II is based on the incident near spawn shown in P-003, where Detective Vennefly is collecting murder clues and is later attacked with a knockback item.

2. The Prosecution alleges Obstruction of Justice based on the attack on Detective Vennefly.

3. However, all murder clues had already been collected before the attack occurred, as shown by the chat messages on the left side of P-003.

4. Therefore, the official act described by the Prosecution had already been completed by the time of the attack.

5. Since the collection of clues had already been completed, the attack on Detective Vennefly could no longer prevent or impede the collection of those clues.

6. As a result, Count II does not state a complete charge of Obstruction of Justice under the Miscellaneous Offenses Act and should be dismissed under Rule 5.5.

 

[Kaiserin_]

Plea

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
PLEA
The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

wttn2c
Defendant


I. ENTRY OF PLEA
1. As to Count I of Obstruction of Justice, the Defendant pleads NO CONTEST
2. As to Count II of Obstruction of Justice, the Defendant pleads 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 20th day of June 2026

Motion

MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT II

The Defence respectfully moves to dismiss Count II pursuant to Rule 5.3 and Rule 5.5 - Lack of Claim.

1. Count II is based on the incident near spawn shown in P-003, where Detective Vennefly is collecting murder clues and is later attacked with a knockback item.

2. The Prosecution alleges Obstruction of Justice based on the attack on Detective Vennefly.

3. However, all murder clues had already been collected before the attack occurred, as shown by the chat messages on the left side of P-003.

4. Therefore, the official act described by the Prosecution had already been completed by the time of the attack.

5. Since the collection of clues had already been completed, the attack on Detective Vennefly could no longer prevent or impede the collection of those clues.

6. As a result, Count II does not state a complete charge of Obstruction of Justice under the Miscellaneous Offenses Act and should be dismissed under Rule 5.5.

Your plea is noted. MTD is denied at this time - motions pursuant to Rule 5.5 may only be submitted after Discovery has ended. The Prosecution still has time to submit evidence supporting their charge.

Discovery shall now begin for a period of 5 days, or until otherwise ended by mutual agreement.

 

[KeyChunky321]

Witness List
Pursuant to Rule 4.9

1. The current Secretary of the Departement of Homeland Security

DATED: This 21th day of June 2026

 

[KeyChunky321]

Your Honor,


The Defense requests that discovery close on June 22, 2026, at 11:59 PM UTC, subject to the Prosecution’s consent.

DATED: This 21st June of 2026

 

[AmityBlamity]

Your Honor,


The Defense requests that discovery close on June 22, 2026, at 11:59 PM UTC, subject to the Prosecution’s consent.

DATED: This 21st June of 2026

Your Honour, we do not consent to closing Discovery early.

 

[Kaiserin_]

Discovery shall continue as previously dictated.

 

[Kaiserin_]

Discovery has ended. The prosecution ( @AmityBlamity ) shall have 72 hours to produce an opening statement.

 

[KeyChunky321]

Motion

MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT II

The Defence respectfully moves to dismiss Count II pursuant to Rule 5.3 and Rule 5.5 - Lack of Claim.

1. Count II is based on the incident near spawn shown in P-003, where Detective Vennefly is collecting murder clues and is later attacked with a knockback item.

2. The Prosecution alleges Obstruction of Justice based on the attack on Detective Vennefly.

3. However, all murder clues had already been collected before the attack occurred, as shown by the chat messages on the left side of P-003.

4. Therefore, the official act described by the Prosecution had already been completed by the time of the attack.

5. Since the collection of clues had already been completed, the attack on Detective Vennefly could no longer prevent or impede the collection of those clues.

6. As a result, Count II does not state a complete charge of Obstruction of Justice under the Miscellaneous Offenses Act and should be dismissed under Rule 5.5.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Motion

MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT II

The Defence respectfully moves to dismiss Count II pursuant to Rule 5.3 and Rule 5.5 - Lack of Claim.

1. Count II is based on the incident near spawn shown in P-003, where Detective Vennefly is collecting murder clues and is later attacked with a knockback item.

2. The Prosecution alleges Obstruction of Justice based on the attack on Detective Vennefly.

3. However, all murder clues had already been collected before the attack occurred, as shown by the chat messages on the left side of P-003.

4. Therefore, the official act described by the Prosecution had already been completed by the time of the attack.

5. Since the collection of clues had already been completed, the attack on Detective Vennefly could no longer prevent or impede the collection of those clues.

6. As a result, Count II does not state a complete charge of Obstruction of Justice under the Miscellaneous Offenses Act and should be dismissed under Rule 5.5.

Permission to respond, Your Honour?

 

[Kaiserin_]

Permission to respond, Your Honour?

Certainly.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Motion

MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT II

The Defence respectfully moves to dismiss Count II pursuant to Rule 5.3 and Rule 5.5 - Lack of Claim.

1. Count II is based on the incident near spawn shown in P-003, where Detective Vennefly is collecting murder clues and is later attacked with a knockback item.

2. The Prosecution alleges Obstruction of Justice based on the attack on Detective Vennefly.

3. However, all murder clues had already been collected before the attack occurred, as shown by the chat messages on the left side of P-003.

4. Therefore, the official act described by the Prosecution had already been completed by the time of the attack.

5. Since the collection of clues had already been completed, the attack on Detective Vennefly could no longer prevent or impede the collection of those clues.

6. As a result, Count II does not state a complete charge of Obstruction of Justice under the Miscellaneous Offenses Act and should be dismissed under Rule 5.5.

Response to Motion to Dismiss

Your Honour,

Defense's argument that Count II of Obstruction of Justice lacks standing is nonsense. Counsel seems to be implying that Obstruction of Justice solely applies if the accused intervened during the collection of clues. The actual definition reads as follow (emphasis mine):

Willfully interfering with the process of justice through influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, police officer, detective, or by providing false information.

As we see in the video, Vennefly had not yet concluded the investigation. While the clues were gathered, Vennefly still had to analyze them in order to determine the identity of our dearly departed ameslap's murderer. We can see in the video that wttn2c struck Vennefly twice, and was only prevented from continuing his assault by the intervention of a passerby. He was absolutely attempting to impede Vennefly's investigation, and I put forward that it should be Your Honour's decision whether or not wttn2c is guilty of Obstruction of Justice. To dismiss the charge now would be, in the DOJ's humble opinion, premature.

 

[KeyChunky321]

Your Honour, may the Defence be granted leave to briefly reply to the Prosecution’s response before the Court rules on the Motion? The Defence’s reply will be limited to clarifying the theory pleaded in Count II.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Your Honour, may the Defence be granted leave to briefly reply to the Prosecution’s response before the Court rules on the Motion? The Defence’s reply will be limited to clarifying the theory pleaded in Count II.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
Breach of Procedure

Your Honour, responses to responses are not permitted. If the defendant has something they wish to clarify regarding their theory, they should have added it in the initial Motion to Dismiss.

 

[KeyChunky321]

May I respond to the Prosecution’s objection, Your Honor?

 

[Kaiserin_]

Your Honour, may the Defence be granted leave to briefly reply to the Prosecution’s response before the Court rules on the Motion? The Defence’s reply will be limited to clarifying the theory pleaded in Count II.

No. If I were to permit responses to responses, we would be here all day.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
Breach of Procedure

Your Honour, responses to responses are not permitted. If the defendant has something they wish to clarify regarding their theory, they should have added it in the initial Motion to Dismiss.

Sustained on technicality, though no objection was necessary.

Motion

MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT II

The Defence respectfully moves to dismiss Count II pursuant to Rule 5.3 and Rule 5.5 - Lack of Claim.

1. Count II is based on the incident near spawn shown in P-003, where Detective Vennefly is collecting murder clues and is later attacked with a knockback item.

2. The Prosecution alleges Obstruction of Justice based on the attack on Detective Vennefly.

3. However, all murder clues had already been collected before the attack occurred, as shown by the chat messages on the left side of P-003.

4. Therefore, the official act described by the Prosecution had already been completed by the time of the attack.

5. Since the collection of clues had already been completed, the attack on Detective Vennefly could no longer prevent or impede the collection of those clues.

6. As a result, Count II does not state a complete charge of Obstruction of Justice under the Miscellaneous Offenses Act and should be dismissed under Rule 5.5.

Not granted. The Court finds that an outright dismissal of the charge would be premature at this time. The prosecution presents a cognisable theory under which the statute may apply to the underlying facts, and shall be granted the opportunity to justify that charge through argumentation using the evidence presented.

The deadline for opening statements stands.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Discovery has ended. The prosecution ( @AmityBlamity ) shall have 72 hours to produce an opening statement.

Requesting a 24 hour extensions Your Honour.

 

[Kaiserin_]

Requesting a 24 hour extensions Your Honour.

Granted.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Granted.

Requesting a final 24 hour extension Your Honour. Apologies for the lateness but I've just been appointed Acting Attorney General, and having to go over a lot on my end.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Opening Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Opening Statement -

Your Honour,

The defendant, Wttn2c, pleaded no contest on the first count of Obstruction of Justice. He doesn't admit guilt, but nor does he attempt to plead his innocence. Visiting P-002, we can clearly see Vennefly attempting to carry out an investigation, and Wttn2c intervening to ensure our brave detective is unable to crack the case.

This was the first incident. We have established the first occurrence of this behavior. The defendant has argued that Count 2 should be dropped because the attack (and they do admit it was an attack) occurred after Vennefly gathered clues. As you rightfully declared, this should be decided on verdict. I put it to you that this second video, this attack, is the makings of a pattern. The demonstration of Wttn2c's continued efforts to impede our heroic detectives in solving Redmont's many crimes.

You'll note the timing of both incidents. Both events playing out in the same way: Vennefly arriving at a crime scene, gathering clues, and then getting attacked. There is clear symmetry here. I cannot pretend to know why Wttn2c feels the need to sabotage our investigations in such a way.

Revisiting the definition of Obstruction of Justice, we have two tests to meet. First, did Wttn2c willfully interfere with the process of justice? Absolutely. His counsel confessed this was an attack, and made no defense or offered no proof that Wttn2c was forced, coerced, or otherwise influenced in some way to carry out his actions.

Second, was this interference done through influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, police officer, or detective? Again, absolutely. Vennefly is a detective, as previously established. Wttn2c outright gunned him down on one occasion, and then both harmed and impeded him in an attack with a knockback item. The definition of Obstruction of Justice is thus satisfied.

As far as I'm concerned, this is an open and shut case. We have the tape of Vennefly gathering evidence, and Wttn2c intervening to stop his investigation. I humbly plead the Court to agree with the Commonwealth, and find Wttn2c guilty of these heinous acts. With the crime wave that has struck the server, we cannot afford to have our detectives impeded in their vital work.

 

[KeyChunky321]

Your Honor, may I submit my Opening Statement?

 

[Dartanboy]

To be public with it:

I was the Public Defender Director for some amount of time while this case was in session.

Out of an abundance of caution, I am voluntarily recusing from this case.

 

[KeyChunky321]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Motion to Reconsider

Your Honor,

The Defense respectfully asks for a reconsideration of the latest Motion to Dismiss Count II submitted by the Defense.

I believe there was a misunderstanding about what the Defense pled to be dismissed based on what the Prosecution pled in "II. Facts: 5." of his Case Filing and in the Answer to the Motion to Dismiss.

1. What the Defense asked to be dismissed:
The Prosecution pled in "III. CHARGES: 1." of the Case Filing, that the Defendant shall be charged with 2 (two) Counts of Obstruction of Justice.
With his Motion to Dismiss Count II, the Defense requested to reduce the by the Prosecution pled charges from 2 (two) Counts of Obstruction of Justice to 1 (one) Count of Obstruction of Justice.
The second Count of Obstruction of Justice is built on the mentioned above 5. Fact ("II. FACTS: 5.").
The action described in 5. is not supported by any evidence. The Defendant did not prevent Detective Vennefly from collecting the murder clues, as they were already collected, the moment the physical contact took place.

Therefore, as the described action did not occur, the Defense asked to Dismiss the second Count of Obstruction of Justice

2. Answer to Motion to Dismiss Count II

The Prosection argued in his Answer to Motion to Dismiss, that Detective "Vennefly had not yet concluded the investigation" and Detective "Vennefly had to analyze them [(the clues)]"
However, the action preventing Detective Vennefly from analyzing the clues is not described in the section "II. FACTS" of the Prosectution's Case Filing.

In his Answer to Motion to Dismiss, the Prosecution used an action that was not filed and was therefore irrelevant to this case and shall not be used as an argument for the Answer to Motion to Dismiss, which affected the decision.

3. Conclusion

For the reasons just mentioned, the Defense respectfully asks the Court to review it's previous decision and reconsider the Motion to Dismiss Count II. Furthermore, the defense moves to strike the arguments by the Prosecution presented in this Motion under “2. Response to the Motion to Dismiss Count II.”

Thank you.

DATED: This 15th of July, 2026