Lawsuit: Adjourned Commonwealth of Redmont v. wttn2c [2026] DCR 80

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mask3D_WOLF

Mask3D_WOLF

His Holiness Pope Benetukt XVII
Public Defender
Supporter
Oakridge Resident
Homeland Security Department
Public Affairs Department
Justice Department
Change Maker Popular in the Polls Legal Eagle Statesman
Mask3D_WOLF
Mask3D_WOLF
Public Defender
Joined
May 14, 2021
Messages
1,005
IN THE FEDERAL 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:

PROSECUTING AUTHORITY REPORT
On February 8th, 2026 the Department of Homeland Security was notified of a Bank Robbery via the bank alarms going off. Captain HellsideBurnton and Lieutenant Rookieblue14 of the Department of Homeland Security responded to the alarm. Upon arrival, Captain HellsideBurnton and Lieutenant Rookieblue14 were shot and killed by an unknown player inside the Bank Vault. During subsequent responses, Lieutenant Rookieblue14 was able to detain the suspect inside the vault, revealing their identity to be wttn2c. Captain HellsideBurnton was killed eleven times while attempting to detain wttn2c, while Lieutenant Rookieblue14 was killed one time.


I. PARTIES
1. The Commonwealth of Redmont
2. Mask3D_WOLF - Prosecution
3. wttn2c - Defendant
4. Fmr. Captain HellsideBurnton - Victim
5. Fmr. Lieutenant Rookieblue14 - Victim

II. FACTS
1. On February 8, 2026, the bank alarms sounded, notifying the Department of Homeland Security that the bank was being robbed
2. Rookieblue14 and HellsideBurnton responded to the robbery
3. While trying to get into the bank vault to arrest the robber inside, Rookieblue14 and HellsideBurnton were repeatedly killed by the player inside
4. When the player inside was detained, they were revealed to be wttn2c

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. One charge of Obstruction of Justice for willfully impeding the process of justice by harming an officer attempting to conduct an arrest

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. Jail time of 60 minutes
2. Fine of 3 penalty units

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 seventh day of June 2026

Evidence:
 

Writ of Summons


@wttn2c is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Commonwealth of Redmont v wttn2c [2026] DCR 80

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.

 
ko531 said:
Since the defendant failed to appear a Public Defender will be assigned.
Click to expand...
The Public Defender Program is currently representing 11 cases with only 4 Public Defenders. Of those, I am personally representing 6 of the cases. The PD who I assigned to this case is not responding to my messages.

I would ask the case be stayed until the Defendant can reasonably be given competent counsel.

Edit: It looks like they reacted to my message with a Thumbs Up emoji. Hopefully they will appear.
 

Plea


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
PLEA

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

wttn2c
Defendant


I. ENTRY OF PLEA
1. Defendant pleads Not Guilty to one charge of of Obstruction of Justice.

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 first day of July 2026

 

Motion


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

Your Honor,

The Defendant seeks dismissal of the first charge under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim) and Rule 5.10 (Statute of Limitations). Court R. & Proc, Rule 5.5; id. at Rule 5.10. In support thereof the Defendant respectfully alleges:

The statute of limitations for the charge brought by the prosecution in this case is four months. See Criminal Code Act Part I Section 7.a. The Prosecution claims that the alleged events occured on February 8th of 2026 but has not provided any evidence at all to support this claim. Without any evidence supporting the claim at all, it can not possibly be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged events occurred on February 8th. As such, the prosecution has not and will not be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged events occurred within the four months before the initial filing made in this proceeding and thus that this case falls within the statute of limitations. This means that there is not enough evidence to support the criminal charge in any circumstance and therefore the Defendant respectfully requests it be dismissed.

Thank you.

 
gribble19 said:

Motion


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

Your Honor,

The Defendant seeks dismissal of the first charge under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim) and Rule 5.10 (Statute of Limitations). Court R. & Proc, Rule 5.5; id. at Rule 5.10. In support thereof the Defendant respectfully alleges:

The statute of limitations for the charge brought by the prosecution in this case is four months. See Criminal Code Act Part I Section 7.a. The Prosecution claims that the alleged events occured on February 8th of 2026 but has not provided any evidence at all to support this claim. Without any evidence supporting the claim at all, it can not possibly be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged events occurred on February 8th. As such, the prosecution has not and will not be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged events occurred within the four months before the initial filing made in this proceeding and thus that this case falls within the statute of limitations. This means that there is not enough evidence to support the criminal charge in any circumstance and therefore the Defendant respectfully requests it be dismissed.

Thank you.

Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Court Rules and Procedures specify that Motions to Dismiss must be filed prior to the beginning of opening statements (Rule 5.2). As opening statements have begun, the Motion to Dismiss for violation of Rule 5.10 has been filed too late and should therefore be struck.



Edited as declared in this post to comply with Court Rules and Procedures.
 
Last edited:
Mask3D_WOLF said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Court Rules and Procedures specify that Motions to Dismiss must be filed prior to the beginning of opening statements (Rule 5.2). As opening statements have begun, the Motion to Dismiss for violation of Rule 5.10 has been filed too late and should therefore be struck.

Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,

It is required to hyperlink to the correct forum post when using a source the first time this source is mentioned in a filing. Court R. & Proc, Rule 1.10.
The objection filed by the Prosecution uses the Court Rules and Procedures as a source but does not hyperlink to the correct forum post the first time it is mentioned within the filing. As such, the filing was not made in line with the Court Rules and Procedures and the Defendant respectfully requests this filing be struck and that the Prosecution be warned to follow the Court Rules and Procedures from here on out or be held in contempt of court.

Thank you.

 
gribble19 said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,

It is required to hyperlink to the correct forum post when using a source the first time this source is mentioned in a filing. Court R. & Proc, Rule 1.10.
The objection filed by the Prosecution uses the Court Rules and Procedures as a source but does not hyperlink to the correct forum post the first time it is mentioned within the filing. As such, the filing was not made in line with the Court Rules and Procedures and the Defendant respectfully requests this filing be struck and that the Prosecution be warned to follow the Court Rules and Procedures from here on out or be held in contempt of court.

Thank you.

Click to expand...
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

The prosecution takes this point well and has amended the original objection to include a hyperlink to the court's rules and procedures.
 

Opening Statement


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

This is an open-and-shut case. The evidence presented shows the defendant, wttn2c, harming police officers who were attempting to conduct an arrest for bank robbery. The criteria being used in this case for an offense of Obstruction of Justice, as seen in the Criminal Code Act, is, "willfully interfer[ing] with the process of justice by influencing a witness, potential witness, or law enforcement officer". From the evidence, it is clear that the defendant willfully interfered with the process of justice (as seen in their interference with a lawful arrest) by harming a law enforcement officer. This meets the criteria laid out, constituting the offense charged. The prosecution will continue to strengthen this case in order to bring the defendant, wttn2c, to justice.

Thank you.

 
gribble19 said:

Motion


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

Your Honor,

The Defendant seeks dismissal of the first charge under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim) and Rule 5.10 (Statute of Limitations). Court R. & Proc, Rule 5.5; id. at Rule 5.10. In support thereof the Defendant respectfully alleges:

The statute of limitations for the charge brought by the prosecution in this case is four months. See Criminal Code Act Part I Section 7.a. The Prosecution claims that the alleged events occured on February 8th of 2026 but has not provided any evidence at all to support this claim. Without any evidence supporting the claim at all, it can not possibly be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged events occurred on February 8th. As such, the prosecution has not and will not be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged events occurred within the four months before the initial filing made in this proceeding and thus that this case falls within the statute of limitations. This means that there is not enough evidence to support the criminal charge in any circumstance and therefore the Defendant respectfully requests it be dismissed.

Thank you.

Click to expand...
If not struck for the violation listed in the prosecution's objection, may we respond to the Motion to Dismiss?
 
Mask3D_WOLF said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Court Rules and Procedures specify that Motions to Dismiss must be filed prior to the beginning of opening statements (Rule 5.2). As opening statements have begun, the Motion to Dismiss for violation of Rule 5.10 has been filed too late and should therefore be struck.



Edited as declared in this post to comply with Court Rules and Procedures.
Click to expand...
Overruled.

While yes, their motion to dismiss based on Rule 5.10 is late, Rule 5.5 MTDs are explicitly allowed untill witness testimony under rule 5.2. I am not striking the entire MTD when there is validity in it.

gribble19 said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,

It is required to hyperlink to the correct forum post when using a source the first time this source is mentioned in a filing. Court R. & Proc, Rule 1.10.
The objection filed by the Prosecution uses the Court Rules and Procedures as a source but does not hyperlink to the correct forum post the first time it is mentioned within the filing. As such, the filing was not made in line with the Court Rules and Procedures and the Defendant respectfully requests this filing be struck and that the Prosecution be warned to follow the Court Rules and Procedures from here on out or be held in contempt of court.

Thank you.

Click to expand...
Sustained.

They have amended their objection to fix this issue. Consider this the commonwealth's warning to follow the court rules.

Mask3D_WOLF said:
If not struck for the violation listed in the prosecution's objection, may we respond to the Motion to Dismiss?
Click to expand...
You have an automatic 48 hours to respond according to the FCR rules.
 
ko531 said:
Overruled.

While yes, their motion to dismiss based on Rule 5.10 is late, Rule 5.5 MTDs are explicitly allowed untill witness testimony under rule 5.2. I am not striking the entire MTD when there is validity in it.


Sustained.

They have amended their objection to fix this issue. Consider this the commonwealth's warning to follow the court rules.


You have an automatic 48 hours to respond according to the FCR rules.
Click to expand...
My apologies, Your Honor, but I was under the impression that we would be proceeding under DCR rules. Just for clarification, will we be observing FCR rules in this case?
 
gribble19 said:

Motion


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

Your Honor,

The Defendant seeks dismissal of the first charge under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim) and Rule 5.10 (Statute of Limitations). Court R. & Proc, Rule 5.5; id. at Rule 5.10. In support thereof the Defendant respectfully alleges:

The statute of limitations for the charge brought by the prosecution in this case is four months. See Criminal Code Act Part I Section 7.a. The Prosecution claims that the alleged events occured on February 8th of 2026 but has not provided any evidence at all to support this claim. Without any evidence supporting the claim at all, it can not possibly be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged events occurred on February 8th. As such, the prosecution has not and will not be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged events occurred within the four months before the initial filing made in this proceeding and thus that this case falls within the statute of limitations. This means that there is not enough evidence to support the criminal charge in any circumstance and therefore the Defendant respectfully requests it be dismissed.

Thank you.

Click to expand...
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honor,

The Prosecution claims that the events in this case occurred on February 8, 2026, and has indeed provided evidence that supports this claim. Prosecution's only exhibit (which I will refer to as Exhibit A from this point forward) shows at timestamp 1:53 that all wanted points active during the incident were created on February 8, 2026. This could not be possible unless the incident occurred on February 8, 2026, or later. Either way, this would satisfy the four-month statute of limitations. Additionally, timestamp 2:11 shows a broadcast stating that the Players' Choice Awards had begun. The most recent Players' Choice Awards took place on February 8, 2026 (link to announcement), consistent with the evidence at timestamp 1:53. Finally, the video was published on February 8, 2026. The incident couldn't have occurred before February 8, 2026 (wanted points), nor could it have occurred later (video publication date). It occurred exactly on that date (Players' Choice Awards).

February 8, 2026 is within four months of the filing date of June 7, 2026. The prosecution has therefore filed the case within four months of the offense, within the statute of limitations.

Thank you.

EDIT 11:10 PM ET: Please note that I have included the announcement as a citation, not in order to submit it into evidence.
 
Last edited:
I will now be taking on this case following the resignation of the Honorable Former Judge ko531.
gribble19 said:

Motion


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

Your Honor,

The Defendant seeks dismissal of the first charge under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim) and Rule 5.10 (Statute of Limitations). Court R. & Proc, Rule 5.5; id. at Rule 5.10. In support thereof the Defendant respectfully alleges:

The statute of limitations for the charge brought by the prosecution in this case is four months. See Criminal Code Act Part I Section 7.a. The Prosecution claims that the alleged events occured on February 8th of 2026 but has not provided any evidence at all to support this claim. Without any evidence supporting the claim at all, it can not possibly be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged events occurred on February 8th. As such, the prosecution has not and will not be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged events occurred within the four months before the initial filing made in this proceeding and thus that this case falls within the statute of limitations. This means that there is not enough evidence to support the criminal charge in any circumstance and therefore the Defendant respectfully requests it be dismissed.

Thank you.

Click to expand...
Motion denied. The Prosecution's evidence shows the date on which wanted points were created, and as such it seems at the very least probable that the evidence was recorded before February 8th, 2026 at 1:49 AM UTC. The evidence, therefore, has the potential to support the Criminal Charges outlined by the Prosecution.

Although the former Presiding Officer never tolled the deadline for Open Statements for the Defense, he also never asked for the Defendant's Counsel to provide one. As such, @gribble19, you have 72 hours to file your opening statement.
cc: @ameslap
 
The Public Defender has failed to file an Opening Statement, and thus the Public Defender program is hereby found in Contempt of Court with a penalty of 5 Penalty Units.

The Defendant has a Constitutional Right under C.R. Const. Part V § 35(9) "to have the assistance of legally qualified counsel for their defence." Rule 6.5 of the Court Rules and Procedures states that an individual who is assigned a Public Defender is entitled to an attorney who "Timely respond to cases on their behalf," something that the Public Defender Program has failed to provide. As such, for each additional day that the PD Program fails to provide a Public Defender who will make court filings, it shall receive another Contempt of Court charge, each carrying a 10 Penalty Unit penalty.

A Public Defender must file an opening statement.
cc: @ameslap
 
Last edited:
CreeperTD said:
The Public Defender has failed to file an Opening Statement, and thus the Public Defender program is hereby found in Contempt of Court with a penalty of 5 Penalty Units.

The Defendant has a Constitutional Right under C.R. Const. Part V § 35(9) "to have the assistance of legally qualified counsel for their defence." Rule 6.5 of the Court Rules and Procedures states that an individual who is assigned a Public Defender is entitled to an attorney who "Timely respond to cases on their behalf," something that the Public Defender Program has failed to provide. As such, for each additional day that the PD Program fails to provide a Public Defender who will make court filings, it shall receive another Contempt of Court charge, each carrying a 10 Penalty Unit penalty.

A Public Defender must file an opening statement.
cc: @ameslap
Click to expand...
Your honor,

I’m not sure how you fine an entire PD Program with contempt, thus fining the judiciary as that is what the program is under.

Fining the Public Defender and removing them, sure.

At this moment there is no Public Defender assigned and will work to assign one, but I cannot say when that will be.
 
ameslap said:
Your honor,

I’m not sure how you fine an entire PD Program with contempt, thus fining the judiciary as that is what the program is under.

Fining the Public Defender and removing them, sure.

At this moment there is no Public Defender assigned and will work to assign one, but I cannot say when that will be.
Click to expand...
You are free to file a motion to reconsider.
 
CreeperTD said:
The Public Defender has failed to file an Opening Statement, and thus the Public Defender program is hereby found in Contempt of Court with a penalty of 5 Penalty Units.

The Defendant has a Constitutional Right under C.R. Const. Part V § 35(9) "to have the assistance of legally qualified counsel for their defence." Rule 6.5 of the Court Rules and Procedures states that an individual who is assigned a Public Defender is entitled to an attorney who "Timely respond to cases on their behalf," something that the Public Defender Program has failed to provide. As such, for each additional day that the PD Program fails to provide a Public Defender who will make court filings, it shall receive another Contempt of Court charge, each carrying a 10 Penalty Unit penalty.

A Public Defender must file an opening statement.
cc: @ameslap
Click to expand...
Upon being given additional information by the Public Defender Director, the court has decided, despite the refusal to file a motion to reconsider, to strike this order and replace it with the following:

Public Defender gribble19 is hereby found in Contempt of Court and will be fined 5 Penalty Units. Proceedings shall halt until a new Public Defender is assigned.
 
The court notes that no witnesses were called by the prosecution. As such, when a Public Defender is called, they will only be required to make a closing statement. For now, the Prosecution is asked to make a closing statement within 72 hours of this post. The Opening Statement may be used for this purpose if the Prosecution wishes. This Closing Statement will effectively serve as a Legal Brief described in Rule 3.6.2(c) for both sides.

@Mask3D_WOLF
 
CreeperTD said:
The court notes that no witnesses were called by the prosecution. As such, when a Public Defender is called, they will only be required to make a closing statement. For now, the Prosecution is asked to make a closing statement within 72 hours of this post. The Opening Statement may be used for this purpose if the Prosecution wishes. This Closing Statement will effectively serve as a Legal Brief described in Rule 3.6.2(c) for both sides.

@Mask3D_WOLF
Click to expand...
The Prosecution wishes to use its opening statement for this purpose.
 

Closing Statement


Your Honor,

The Defendant's innocence can be derived from a nitty-gritty, word-by-word analysis of laws.

The Prosecution has failed to provide any meaningful definition of Obstruction of Justice. As such, it falls upon the Defendant to provide one themselves. The now-repealed CCA (which would have been in effect at the time of this filing) defines Obstruction of Justice as the following:

3 - Obstruction of Justice
Offence Type: Indictable
Penalty: Up to 10 Penalty Units; Up to 60 minutes imprisonment
A person commits an offence if the person:
(a) willfully interferes with the process of justice by threatening, harming, or impeding a witness or potential witness; or
(b) willfully interferes with the process of justice by influencing a witness, potential witness, or law enforcement officer; or
(c) knowingly provides false information to a law enforcement officer in the course of their duties.
Click to expand...
Take note of the verbs used in subsections A and B. Subsection A uses the verbs "threatening", "harming", and "impeding". Subsection B uses the verb "influencing" and ONLY the verb "influencing". Upon investigation of the law, we see that subsection A does not apply to law enforcement officers; only to potential witnesses or witnesses. This means that, as the conduct demonstrated in this case was directed towards a law enforcement officer, in order to be charged with Obstruction of Justice, the Defendant must have been willfully interfering with the process of justice by influencing a law enforcement officer. Notably, influencing is not the same as harming. Understanding that dictionary definitions do not bind a legal argument (but noting that they may augment one), "influencing" is defined by Merriam-Webster as "the power or capacity to cause an effect in indirect or intangible ways". Influence is generally accepted to be subtle and a tool of manipulation. The Defendant made no attempt to influence the involved officer, nor did he make an attempt to manipulate them in any form that may be considered influencing. Physical force is not influence. Perhaps an argument for that could be made if the verb for physical force had not been explicitly named earlier (harming)- a previous reference that further reinforces the idea that influence and physical harm are two different things entirely.

Additionally, if the authors of the CCA had meant for harming a law enforcement officer to count as Obstruction of Justice, they certainly would have included it as a relevant verb in subsection B, especially as they had included the exact same verb prior.

Also note that previous precedent that may otherwise have been relevant to this case defines Obstruction of Justice differently. See Commonwealth of Redmont v. Eatyourgreens [2025][DCR 101], where Obstruction of Justice was defined as:
A person commits an offence if the person:
(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...
This definition of Obstruction of Justice is different than the definition provided by the repealed CCA and thus cannot be used as precedent as the discontinuity in definition is noticeable enough that it substantiates a meaningful difference.

Ultimately, while the Defendant's actions may have qualified as murder, they were by no means Obstruction of Justice, as made clear by a brief analysis of the CCA.

Thank you.

 

Verdict


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Commonwealth of Redmont v. wttn2c [2026] DCR 80

I. PROSECUTION’S POSITION
The Defendant committed Obstruction of Justice by impeding the process of justice, and that harming then Lieutenant Rookieblue14 constituted willful interference with the process of justice by influencing a law enforcement officer (LEO).

II. DEFENDANT’S POSITION
Defendant pled not guilty to the charge of Obstruction of Justice. Counsel argues that the definition of Obstruction of Justice in the Criminal Code Act only applies one part of its definition to LEOs, thereby only prohibiting the influencing of LEOs, while at the same time expressly omitting the inclusion of LEOs in the first part, forbidding the impediment, threatening, or harming of a witness or potential witness.

III. THE COURT’S OPINION
The Defendant has been charged with just one Criminal Offense, that being Obstruction of Justice. Although on its face this case appears to have a foregone conclusion, the actual wording of statute makes coming to a verdict more complicated.

There appears to be a wonderful precedent which initially seems to make this case quite simple. Commonwealth of Redmont v. EatYourGreens_ [2025] DCR 101 found an individual guilty of Obstruction of Justice for having murdered a Police Officer while they were undertaking their official duties of arresting that individual. It appears, however, that the CCA at that time differs from the current CCA. That CCA defined Obstruction of Justice as when one “willfully interferes with the process of justice by influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, or law enforcement officer.” The Government Employee Protections Act amended the definition of Obstruction of Justice, changing it to the definition that was in effect at the time of this lawsuit being filed. The repealed Criminal Code Act defines Obstruction of Justice in the following manner in Part III § 3:

A person commits an offence if the person:
(a) willfully interferes with the process of justice by threatening, harming, or impeding a witness or potential witness; or
(b) willfully interferes with the process of justice by influencing a witness, potential witness, or law enforcement officer; or
(c) knowingly provides false information to a law enforcement officer in the course of their duties.
Click to expand...
If Congress intended for threats, harm, and impediment to be equivalent to influencing, they would not have separated the two in the Criminal Code Act. It is clear that the law has purposefully separated those two definitions in order to create a much narrower set of requirements for an individual to be charged with Obstruction of Justice. The Government Employee Protections Act was signed into law March 31, 2026, meaning that if the DOJ had filed this lawsuit closer to the time of the incident, this would not be an issue. Although a different offense might apply here, that being Obstruction of Government Department (CCA Part II § 9), the Defendant has not been charged with that offense, and as such the Court cannot consider it.

Has the Commonwealth, then, shown evidence of the Defendant attempting to influence any LEOs? The Court does not believe so. The only evidence presented to the Court in these proceedings was a singular YouTube video, showing the Defendant killing LEOs attempt to arrest them. This does not appear to show that the Defendant “willfully interfere[d] with the process of justice by influencing a witness, potential witness, or law enforcement officer.”

IV. DECISION
In the matter of Commonwealth of Redmont v. wttn2c [2026] DCR 80, the Court finds the Defendant wttn2c NOT GUILTY on the count of Obstruction of Justice.

The Court would like to advise the Department of Justice to avoid waiting until just before the Statute of Limitations to file a case against an individual in order to avoid situations such as the one before the Court now.

The District Court thanks all parties involved. This Court is now adjourned.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top