Lawsuit: Pending Commonwealth of Redmont v. zPokeBr_ [2026] FCR 108

S

SplashyAlpaca77

Citizen
Oakridge Resident
Justice Department
SplashyAlpaca77
SplashyAlpaca77
State Prosecutor
Joined
Jun 30, 2026
Messages
73

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION


The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

zPokebr_
Defendant

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

On October 7th, 2026, Defendant did file an objection in the District Court, providing in support thereof a screenshot of the judiciary chat, classified either SECRET or JUD-SECRET. This constitutes Breach of Integrity under the CCA, as they shared classified material without authorisation.
Click to expand...


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

II. FACTS
1. On October 7th 2026, Defendant Filed an objection in the DCR.
2. That Objection was supported by P-005, a screenshot from the Judiciary Discord.(P-001)
3. A search warrant was procured, and it was validated that no such message was in the judiciary discord not classified as SECRET or JUD-SECRET(P-002,P-003,P-004)

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
  1. Breach of Integrity
An individual commits Breach of Integrity under the Criminal Code Act, Part III, §10 when the person:
(a) shares classified information without authorisation.
Click to expand...
The test for a. is met, because there was no permission given and the information was shared in a public court setting.

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
  1. A fine of 200 Penalty Units (equivalent to $24000)
V. EVIDENCE
Lawsuit: Pending - zPokebr_ v. ZapperyDoo [2026] DCR 113

P-002:
1793723973575.png
P-003:
1793723973584.png
P-004:
1793723973590.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 3rd day of November 2026

 
Last edited:
I'll take this under my docket.

Writ of Summons


@Poker is commanded to appear before the Federal Court in the of Commonwealth of Redmont v. zPokebr_ [2026] FCR 108

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.

 
Poker said:
Present, your honor.
Click to expand...

Excellent. Present an answer within 48 Hours.


Mug's Extension Rules

1) When the Court issues a deadline, you may grant YOURSELF an additional 48 hours if you advise everyone in this thread. You may only do this once per motion/filing. The Court retains the right to revoke this privilege OR extension at any time.

2) If both parties consent, either or both parties may extend a deadline for all parties for a period no longer than 96 Hours.

3) No party shall provide an IRL reason for an extension if the reason is an IRL in nature. Essentially, if its an IRL reason, just say its an IRL reason.
 

Plea


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
PLEA

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

zPokebr_
Defendant

I. ENTRY OF PLEA
1. 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 06 day of September 2026

 

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

Your honor, CMA § 8(10) states that "A Court may issue a subpoena to order the disclosure of classified material to a closed or open court as determined by the Judicial Officer". In such grounds, Defendant moves this Court to Compel Chief Justice to produce the following documents and information:

1) In Oct 7, 2026, What was the classification of the discord channel that contained the alleged classified message ([2026] DCR 113 Post #31 P-005)?
2) On that same date, was the channel's classification explicitly marked? (as required by Section 6(1) of the Classified Materials Act)
3) The logs of the explicity marcation with timestamp
4) The appropriate classification of the channel on the classification list (as in Section 6(2)d of the Act), including the designation, scope and duration of the classification with timestamp of when it was last edited.
5) In Oct 7, 2026, had the classification of the channel been reviewed within the timeframe as required by Section 7(4) of the Classified Materials Act? If not, why?
6) The relevant records or logs evidencing the most recent classification review for the channel and its date
7) What is the purpose of the channel containing the alleged classified message?

Defendant have questions about the enforceability of the alleged classification, including questions about procedure and designation, as seen above. According to CMA § 6(1), "A document, file, message, or Discord channel must be explicitly marked by an authorised individual for classification to be enforceable", CMA § 7(4) "No classification may remain in effect for more than one hundred and fifty (150) days without review(...)" and CMA § 4(4) "Materials shall not be given a classification that is unreasonably high". This set of information will enlighten this Court, the Parties and the Community about the alleged crime.

Further, given (1) the gravity of the accusations against an former Magistrate (2) the community interest in the integrity of the Courts (3) T04DS74 v. Commonwealth of Redmont, Defendant requests that this information is made public in this Court thread, so public interest prevail.



Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
INTERROGATORY SUBMISSION

1. Did the Department researched about the the enforceability of the alleged classification? If so, are there any relevant documents?

 
Last edited:

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
OBJECTION-COMPOUND QUESTION
Your Honor,
The question posed by the defendant has two(2) parts. The first:

Did the Department researched about the the enforceability of the alleged classification?
Click to expand...
The second:
If so, are there any relevant documents?
Click to expand...
According to the Guide-Objections, a compound question is "A question that includes multiple inquiries". As such, the Prosecution asks the judge to order the Defense to rephrase the question into multiple inquiries.

 
SplashyAlpaca77 said:

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
OBJECTION-COMPOUND QUESTION
Your Honor,
The question posed by the defendant has two(2) parts. The first:

The second:

According to the Guide-Objections, a compound question is "A question that includes multiple inquiries". As such, the Prosecution asks the judge to order the Defense to rephrase the question into multiple inquiries.

Click to expand...

Brief


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Compound question is a question that includes multiple inquiries, which can confuse the witness. The question, obviously, does not confuse the Commonwealth.

Further, this objection relates to witnesses, not interrogatories (smokeyybunnyyy v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 103; Court Rule 6.3.2, 4.8/4.9).



Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor, Prosecution misswritten my name in this case, specially in the Initial Complaint and the Court thread title. I request to be called "zPokebr_", not "zPokeBr_".

 

Objection​


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor, Prosecution misswritten my name in this case, specially in the Initial Complaint and the Court thread title. I request to be called "zPokebr_", not "zPokeBr_".
Click to expand...

Response


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION
Your Honor,
My sincerest Apologies. may i have permission to fix my case filing?

 
Poker said:

Brief


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Compound question is a question that includes multiple inquiries, which can confuse the witness. The question, obviously, does not confuse the Commonwealth.

Further, this objection relates to witnesses, not interrogatories (smokeyybunnyyy v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 103; Court Rule 6.3.2, 4.8/4.9).



Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor, Prosecution misswritten my name in this case, specially in the Initial Complaint and the Court thread title. I request to be called "zPokebr_", not "zPokeBr_".

Click to expand...

Objection overruled. The compound question can be read separately in-part if applicable

Defense objection regarding the name is frivolous, counsel is warned. The docket should not be filled with immaterial objections that have no meaningful impact on proceedings. B vs. b is not material.


@SplashyAlpaca77 Fix the name please.
 

Motion​


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
INTERROGATORY SUBMISSION

1. Did the Department researched about the the enforceability of the alleged classification? If so, are there any relevant documents?
Click to expand...

Response


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
INTERROGATORY RESPONSE
1. The research about "enforceability" was limited to confirming that said screenshot was within the judiciary discord with a warrant, namely Small Fries confirming that the message does not exist in any channel in the judiciary discord that does not have a SECRET or JUD-SECRET classification.

 
Poker said:

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

Your honor, CMA § 8(10) states that "A Court may issue a subpoena to order the disclosure of classified material to a closed or open court as determined by the Judicial Officer". In such grounds, Defendant moves this Court to Compel Chief Justice to produce the following documents and information:

1) In Oct 7, 2026, What was the classification of the discord channel that contained the alleged classified message ([2026] DCR 113 Post #31 P-005)?
2) On that same date, was the channel's classification explicitly marked? (as required by Section 6(1) of the Classified Materials Act)
3) The logs of the explicity marcation with timestamp
4) The appropriate classification of the channel on the classification list (as in Section 6(2)d of the Act), including the designation, scope and duration of the classification with timestamp of when it was last edited.
5) In Oct 7, 2026, had the classification of the channel been reviewed within the timeframe as required by Section 7(4) of the Classified Materials Act? If not, why?
6) The relevant records or logs evidencing the most recent classification review for the channel and its date
7) What is the purpose of the channel containing the alleged classified message?

Defendant have questions about the enforceability of the alleged classification, including questions about procedure and designation, as seen above. According to CMA § 6(1), "A document, file, message, or Discord channel must be explicitly marked by an authorised individual for classification to be enforceable", CMA § 7(4) "No classification may remain in effect for more than one hundred and fifty (150) days without review(...)" and CMA § 4(4) "Materials shall not be given a classification that is unreasonably high". This set of information will enlighten this Court, the Parties and the Community about the alleged crime.

Further, given (1) the gravity of the accusations against an former Magistrate (2) the community interest in the integrity of the Courts (3) T04DS74 v. Commonwealth of Redmont, Defendant requests that this information is made public in this Court thread, so public interest prevail.

Click to expand...

Court Order


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Writ of Mandamus

Under the Classified Materials Act, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court serves as the Primary Classification Officer on behalf of the Judiciary of Redmont.

Under this court's subpeona powers under the CMA, the Chief Justice is ordered to appear and respond to the following inquiries.

1) In Oct 7, 2026, What was the classification of the discord channel that contained the alleged classified message ([2026] DCR 113 Post #31 P-005)?
2) On that same date, was the channel's classification explicitly marked?
3) The logs of the explicity marcation with timestamp.
4) The appropriate classification of the channel on the classification list (as in Section 6(2)d of the Act), including the designation, scope and duration of the classification with timestamp of when it was last edited.
5) On or about Oct 7, 2026, had the classification of the channel been reviewed within the timeframe as required by Section 7(4) of the Classified Materials Act? If not, why?
6) The relevant records or logs evidencing the most recent classification review for the channel and its date.
7) What is the purpose of the channel containing the alleged classified message?

No part of any submission should rely on judicial deliberations of the District Court. If such condition exists, please advise the Court in your response.


No follow-up questions to the Chief Justice are permitted.



*accidentally posted at 9:49pm EDT, order typed out fully at 9:58pm EDT.*
 
Last edited:
Muggy21 said:

Court Order


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Writ of Mandamus

Under the Classified Materials Act, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court serves as the Primary Classification Officer on behalf of the Judiciary of Redmont.

Under this court's subpeona powers under the CMA, the Chief Justice is ordered to appear and respond to the following inquiries.

1) In Oct 7, 2026, What was the classification of the discord channel that contained the alleged classified message ([2026] DCR 113 Post #31 P-005)?
2) On that same date, was the channel's classification explicitly marked?
3) The logs of the explicity marcation with timestamp.
4) The appropriate classification of the channel on the classification list (as in Section 6(2)d of the Act), including the designation, scope and duration of the classification with timestamp of when it was last edited.
5) On or about Oct 7, 2026, had the classification of the channel been reviewed within the timeframe as required by Section 7(4) of the Classified Materials Act? If not, why?
6) The relevant records or logs evidencing the most recent classification review for the channel and its date.
7) What is the purpose of the channel containing the alleged classified message?

No part of any submission should rely on judicial deliberations of the District Court. If such condition exists, please advise the Court in your response.


No follow-up questions to the Chief Justice are permitted.



*accidentally posted at 9:49pm EDT, order typed out fully at 9:58pm EDT.*
Click to expand...
Comes now the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont.

The Classified Materials Act ("CMA") explicitly authorizes that a court may "issue a subpoena to order the disclosure of classified material." CMA § 8(10) (emphasis added). No provision allows for a Primary Classification Officer to be questioned, interrogated, or otherwise be made to answer specific questions in court about any material or processes surrounding any classification. Given the very explicit and narrow power granted in text by Congress assembled, I request two clarifications:

1.) Is this court simply asking only that I disclose any alleged classified material at issue, here; and

2.) If not, under what authority does the Federal Court believe it may act in excess of the plain text of Congress's explicit orders when it poses direct interrogatories to a Primary Classification Officer?

I await your reply.
 
Smallfries said:
Comes now the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont.

The Classified Materials Act ("CMA") explicitly authorizes that a court may "issue a subpoena to order the disclosure of classified material." CMA § 8(10) (emphasis added). No provision allows for a Primary Classification Officer to be questioned, interrogated, or otherwise be made to answer specific questions in court about any material or processes surrounding any classification. Given the very explicit and narrow power granted in text by Congress assembled, I request two clarifications:

1.) Is this court simply asking only that I disclose any alleged classified material at issue, here; and

2.) If not, under what authority does the Federal Court believe it may act in excess of the plain text of Congress's explicit orders when it poses direct interrogatories to a Primary Classification Officer?

I await your reply.
Click to expand...

As to Q1, the Court's order only inquiries if the chat is classified. Under CMA § 6(1) and § 6(2)(d), a classification must be recorded in the PCO’s list. Therefore, the Court requests that the Chief Justice state whether the chat appears on that list and, if so, its designation, scope, and duration. Some of the other questions relate only to classification, rather than content itself.

Since this information MAY include classified information and such a request was not deliberately made by Defendant, the Court issued a Writ under the JSA Part V § 2(1). You were summoned because the CMA names you as the PCO.

As to Q2, the Court does not act as counsel to you, Chief Justice Smallfries, and will not provide legal justification on request. Witnesses are not generally permitted to question the Court’s authority, least of all on the premise that the Court is acting in excess of it when it is not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top