Lawsuit: Pending Commonwealth of Redmont v. Xcookies420X [2026] FCR 95

O

OwnedBlock

Citizen
Supporter
Homeland Security Department
Justice Department
Change Maker
OwnedBlock
OwnedBlock
RBI Director
Joined
Jun 10, 2026
Messages
229

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION

Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Xcookies420X
Defendant

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

On 29th of September 2026, DoJ had received a report from an individual concerning the illicit substance plantation within the 3rd floor of the leasehold region wbd1, leased by Xcookies420X at the time. This constitutes Illicit Substance Production under the Criminal Code Act, as they were growing illicit substances on a plot registered to their name.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES​

1. Commonwealth of Redmont (Prosecution)
2. Xcookies420X (Defendant)

​

II. FACTS​

1. On September 29th, 2026, the Defendant had been holding the leasehold region of wbd1. (P-001)
2. A growing copium pod, morning glory plant and coca leaf plant was growing on September 29th, 2026. (P-001, P-002)
3. Copium pods, morning glory seeds and coca leaves are categorized as illicit substances under the Criminal Terminology Act.

​

III. CHARGES​

The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:

1. Illicit Substance Production​

An individual commits Illicit Substance Production under Criminal Code Act, Part VI, §5 when the person:
(a) Plants Buff Seeds
(b) Creates Illicit Substances
(c) Grows Illicit Substances on a plot registered to their name.
Click to expand...
The test (c) is met, since the Defendant had been growing illicit substances (copium pod, morning glory seed and coca leaves) on a plot registered to their name (wbd1).

​

IV. SENTENCING​

The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. A fine of 250 Penalty Units (equivalent to 30000$).
2. 60 minutes of imprisonment.

V. EVIDENCE​

1790944373381.png
1790944386252.png

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 2nd day of October 2026.

 

Writ of Summons

@Xcookies420X is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Commonwealth of Redmont v. Xcookies420X.

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.

 
OwnedBlock said:

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION

Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Xcookies420X
Defendant

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

I. PARTIES​

1. Commonwealth of Redmont (Prosecution)
2. Xcookies420X (Defendant)

​

II. FACTS​

1. On September 29th, 2026, the Defendant had been holding the leasehold region of wbd1. (P-001)
2. A growing copium pod, morning glory plant and coca leaf plant was growing on September 29th, 2026. (P-001, P-002)
3. Copium pods, morning glory seeds and coca leaves are categorized as illicit substances under the Criminal Terminology Act.

​

III. CHARGES​

The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:

1. Illicit Substance Production​

An individual commits Illicit Substance Production under Criminal Code Act, Part VI, §5 when the person:

The test (c) is met, since the Defendant had been growing illicit substances (copium pod, morning glory seed and coca leaves) on a plot registered to their name (wbd1).

​

IV. SENTENCING​

The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. A fine of 250 Penalty Units (equivalent to 30000$).
2. 60 minutes of imprisonment.

V. EVIDENCE​

View attachment 100830
View attachment 100831

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 2nd day of October 2026.

Click to expand...


Court Order


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - REPRESENTATION

I take carriage of this matter. The Commonwealth charges the Defendant with one count of Illicit Substance Production under the Criminal Code Act, Part VI, § 5(c). The offence carries a fine of up to 250 penalty units, or $30,000 (Criminal Code Act, Part I, § 8), so the case is properly before this Court in its original jurisdiction as a major criminal prosecution: Constitution, Part II, § 18(1)(b). The Defendant is summoned by separate notice.

The Court has read the Complaint. One matter is better settled now than at trial.

The Attorney General is responsible for representing the Commonwealth in every proceeding and may appoint a delegate: Judicial Standards Act, Part II, § 4. A criminal trial may take place only if the prosecuting authority is represented by a prosecutor: Part II, § 5(1)(a). The record does not show in what capacity counsel appears. In the related search warrant application he acted as an investigator.

It is therefore ORDERED:

1. The Prosecution (@OwnedBlock) shall, within seventy-two (72) hours of this Order, file a single response stating:
(a) whether counsel appears in this proceeding as the delegate of the Attorney General, with confirmation from the Attorney General or the Lead Attorney where available;
(b) whether counsel is a prosecutor of the Department of Justice; and
(c) the legal rank counsel holds under the Bar Association of Redmont Act, Part VI.

2. This Order does not stay the Defendant's time to plead, which runs from the summons: Court Rules and Procedures, Rule 6.6.

3. An extension sought within the response period shall be granted as of right: Regulations of the Federal Court, § 4.2.

4. If the Commonwealth is not shown to be represented by a prosecutor, the matter will not be listed for trial until it is: Judicial Standards Act, Part II, § 5(1)(a).

This Order is made under § 10 of the Regulations of the Federal Court. It is not a finding on the merits, on the evidence, or on the sufficiency of the charge, and no party is prejudiced by it.

So ordered,
Judge Theory Fontaine

 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Your Honor,
To respond as neccessary to the above order's point 1 of the order, I provide the following information:

1a) I am the Commonwealth of Redmont's designated representative to prosecute this case as a delegate of Attorney General. The previously Acting Attorney General (Nacholebraa) had assigned me to this matter before I had filed this case.
1b) I am not a State Prosecutor, but I am a Special Prosecutor assigned to this matter as stated in point 1a. To that effect, I will present a listing of my jobs alongside a timestamp:
1791432402991.png
1c) I currently hold the Attorney qualification, enabling me to practice in any Redmont court and on any matter. To that effect, I will present a listing of my qualifications alongside a timestamp:
1791432514536.png
I don't think it's neccessary to formally enter these into evidence, as it is a purely procedural matter.
 
OwnedBlock said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Your Honor,
To respond as neccessary to the above order's point 1 of the order, I provide the following information:

1a) I am the Commonwealth of Redmont's designated representative to prosecute this case as a delegate of Attorney General. The previously Acting Attorney General (Nacholebraa) had assigned me to this matter before I had filed this case.
1b) I am not a State Prosecutor, but I am a Special Prosecutor assigned to this matter as stated in point 1a. To that effect, I will present a listing of my jobs alongside a timestamp:
View attachment 101537
1c) I currently hold the Attorney qualification, enabling me to practice in any Redmont court and on any matter. To that effect, I will present a listing of my qualifications alongside a timestamp:
View attachment 101538
I don't think it's neccessary to formally enter these into evidence, as it is a purely procedural matter.
Click to expand...

Court Order


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER ON REPRESENTATION

The Court has read the Prosecution's response to the Order to Show Cause. Counsel appears as a Special Prosecutor holding the rank of Attorney, which satisfies the Judicial Standards Act, Part II, § 5(1)(a): YeetGlazer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 76. His appointment, however, was made by a former Acting Attorney General and has not been confirmed by the current office: Commonwealth of Redmont v. Bezzergeezer [2024] SCR 3.

It is therefore ORDERED:

1. Points 1(b) and 1(c) of the Order to Show Cause are discharged.

2. Within seventy-two (72) hours, the Prosecution shall file confirmation from the current Attorney General or the Lead Attorney that counsel's appointment continues. Either may post it here directly, with leave of the Court: Regulations of the Federal Court, § 4.5.

3. This Order does not affect the Defendant's time to appear under the Summons.

So ordered,
Judge Theory Fontaine

 
Good tidings Judge Fontaine,
The Attorney General approves @OwnedBlock’s representation of the Commonwealth in this matter.

I thank you for bringing up the issue of representation, as the few times a Special Prosecutor must be assigned to a case, they must receive express authorization from the Attorney General.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
NOTICE OF PLEA DEAL AGREEMENT

Your Honor,
The Commonwealth of Redmont has reached a plea deal with the defendant, with the prosecution now recommending the following:
- a total fine of 5 Penalty Units (equating to 600$)
- no imprisonment

To this effect, I submit the following screenshot of the DoJ ticket in which the negotiation was held:
1791465946431.png

The Commonwealth of Redmont moves for either the defendant @Xcookies420X or their counsel @Im_Wolffyy to affirm the above plea deal before the court delivers the verdict with respect to the agreement.
 
ACCEPTANCE OF PLEA AGREEMENT

Your Honor,

With the Defendant’s authorization, the Defense accepts the Prosecution’s offered plea agreement resolving the single count of Illicit Substance Production in this proceeding for a fine of 5 penalty units and no imprisonment.

The Defendant agrees to plead GUILTY pursuant to those terms, subject to the Court’s approval of the agreement.

Proof of Rep.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top