Appeal: Pending In re FCR 123 [2025] | SCR 5 [2026]

[Dogeington]

Username: Sir_Dogeington

I am representing a client

Who is your Client?: The Commonwealth of Redmont

What Case are you Appealing?: [2025]FCR 123

Link to the Original Case: Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. Inknet [2025] FCR 123

Basis for Appeal: Basis for Appeal:

The Court has misinterpreted the law and the Commonwealth's position, and seeks to nullify part of the Criminal Code Act over a perceived lack of sufficient legislative intent.

1. The verdict in FCR 123 states that “In order for the Commonwealth to succeed in its prosecution, it must withstand two components: 1) Defendant sold the items and 2) The act of sale in itself was unlawful; In this instance, Defendant sold the items in question. On the 2nd point, the Court is not convinced.” It is the opinion of the federal court that, although the defendant committed the alleged action, the law itself does not deem that action illegal. The Criminal Code Act Part VI § 6 states “A person commits an offence if the person: (a) distributes, sells, or traffics any health treatment item restricted to Doctors or Pharmacists, or sells in a pharmacy not approved.” Restricted health treatment items in this context refers to treatments that can only be crafted by citizens with the Doctor or Pharmacist professions. The Court further states that “The Criminal Code Act does not expressly forbid a licensed doctor from selling health treatment items outside a hospital, nor does it establish a distinction whereby such sales are lawful in a hospital setting but criminal elsewhere.” This is categorically false – the CCA, without any room for interpretation, categorizes the sale, distribution, and trafficking of restricted health treatment items as illegal, regardless of location, and regardless of profession.

In defense of this interpretation, the Court provides the following legal test: “doctors are authorized to create and provide health treatment items as part of medical care. When such treatment is provided, a sale occurs.” This test demonstrates a severe misunderstanding of DOH procedure, which is even betrayed in the terminology used by the Court. When a citizen goes to the hospital to be treated, a doctor crafts and then administers a cure. What a citizen receives therefore is a treatment, or in other words, a service. No health treatment item is given to a patient in any illness scenario. Should we follow the Court’s logic and conceptualize this interaction as a sale, then the object being purchased is a service by the doctor and not the purchase of a health treatment item.

2. The Court further states that “The Commonwealth’s argument that the Department of Health may be exempt from criminal prohibition under its statutory mandate, while individual doctors are not, does not cure this deficiency.” This interpretation of the Commonwealth’s argument is not accurate to what was being claimed by the Commonwealth in this case. The Department of Health is charged by the Executive Standards Act with the following responsibilities: “(a) Maintenance and upkeep of the national health system. (2) The Department is considered an 'emergency services' provider.” In keeping with these duties, the Department provides medical care for Redmontian citizens through the employment of doctors and various other healthcare professionals. The DOH, recognizing that doctors may not be available at all times, offers cures through the Medishop (P-001). The cures at this shop, notably, are not sold by citizen doctors, but rather by the GovHealth account itself, which is not a person, but rather a minecraft account solely used for DOH administrative purposes (P-002). The DOH’s Employment Policy & Code of Conduct states under Code of Conduct for Doctors: “You (doctors) MUST never sell, gift, nor traffic doctor-crafted cures.” This Code of Conduct was updated by DOH Secretary gwiis on December 3, 2025. However, when referencing the DemocracyCraft Wiki page for the Doctor profession, we similarly find under the Rules section: “Do not sell doctor-only cures outside the hospital,” with the rules section further stating: “If you need to report a Doctor violating these rules or have complaints, report them to a Medical Specialist (MS) or Health Secretary. These rules are enforceable.” While an edit was made to this Wiki page on December 31st, this rule was not added in that edit, meaning that it has existed as a commonly known DOH policy since at least February of 2025, which was the last time this page was edited. DOH policy strictly prohibits doctors from selling health treatment items, meaning that Inknet was not acting in an official DOH capacity when selling those items. Regardless, even if Inkent was acting in an official capacity, as already established, the sale of health treatment items is illegal for anyone to do, regardless of profession.

3. Finally, the court was very clear in its ruling that this case was lost to legal interpretation. The court determined beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant sold the items in question. The court stated in its closing remarks that “Although the law clearly is meant to prohibit the unregulated sale of relevant items, the Court can't apply legislative intent so broadly in the context of a criminal prosecution. TLDR: Congress wrote a law that relied on DoH policy whilst also requiring the Court to only consider the law itself. Congress should fix this.” The verdict admitted that the intent of the law is to ban the conduct exhibited by the defendant, and yet refused to apply this known intent to the case seemingly due to its status as a criminal prosecution. While the core content of the verdict already exhibits a misunderstanding of the Commonwealth’s position, which has already been addressed in this appeal, this choice made regarding standards of interpretation deserves especial scrutiny. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is an evidentiary standard referring to the evidence required to prove the defendant’s guilt. The Court, in pursuit of its duties, is charged with interpreting the law – this duty is independent of the burden of proof in any particular trial. The presiding officer had found that the defendant sold those items beyond a reasonable doubt, but seemingly applied a harsher lens in interpreting the law due to the criminal nature of the trial. This inconsistent application of the law led to a verdict in favour of the defendant.

Supporting Evidence: [see reply]

 

[Dogeington]

Username: Sir_Dogeington

I am representing a client

Who is your Client?: The Commonwealth of Redmont

What Case are you Appealing?: [2025]FCR 123

Link to the Original Case: Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. Inknet [2025] FCR 123

Basis for Appeal: Basis for Appeal:

The Court has misinterpreted the law and the Commonwealth's position, and seeks to nullify part of the Criminal Code Act over a perceived lack of sufficient legislative intent.

1. The verdict in FCR 123 states that “In order for the Commonwealth to succeed in its prosecution, it must withstand two components: 1) Defendant sold the items and 2) The act of sale in itself was unlawful; In this instance, Defendant sold the items in question. On the 2nd point, the Court is not convinced.” It is the opinion of the federal court that, although the defendant committed the alleged action, the law itself does not deem that action illegal. The Criminal Code Act Part VI § 6 states “A person commits an offence if the person: (a) distributes, sells, or traffics any health treatment item restricted to Doctors or Pharmacists, or sells in a pharmacy not approved.” Restricted health treatment items in this context refers to treatments that can only be crafted by citizens with the Doctor or Pharmacist professions. The Court further states that “The Criminal Code Act does not expressly forbid a licensed doctor from selling health treatment items outside a hospital, nor does it establish a distinction whereby such sales are lawful in a hospital setting but criminal elsewhere.” This is categorically false – the CCA, without any room for interpretation, categorizes the sale, distribution, and trafficking of restricted health treatment items as illegal, regardless of location, and regardless of profession.

In defense of this interpretation, the Court provides the following legal test: “doctors are authorized to create and provide health treatment items as part of medical care. When such treatment is provided, a sale occurs.” This test demonstrates a severe misunderstanding of DOH procedure, which is even betrayed in the terminology used by the Court. When a citizen goes to the hospital to be treated, a doctor crafts and then administers a cure. What a citizen receives therefore is a treatment, or in other words, a service. No health treatment item is given to a patient in any illness scenario. Should we follow the Court’s logic and conceptualize this interaction as a sale, then the object being purchased is a service by the doctor and not the purchase of a health treatment item.

2. The Court further states that “The Commonwealth’s argument that the Department of Health may be exempt from criminal prohibition under its statutory mandate, while individual doctors are not, does not cure this deficiency.” This interpretation of the Commonwealth’s argument is not accurate to what was being claimed by the Commonwealth in this case. The Department of Health is charged by the Executive Standards Act with the following responsibilities: “(a) Maintenance and upkeep of the national health system. (2) The Department is considered an 'emergency services' provider.” In keeping with these duties, the Department provides medical care for Redmontian citizens through the employment of doctors and various other healthcare professionals. The DOH, recognizing that doctors may not be available at all times, offers cures through the Medishop (P-001). The cures at this shop, notably, are not sold by citizen doctors, but rather by the GovHealth account itself, which is not a person, but rather a minecraft account solely used for DOH administrative purposes (P-002). The DOH’s Employment Policy & Code of Conduct states under Code of Conduct for Doctors: “You (doctors) MUST never sell, gift, nor traffic doctor-crafted cures.” This Code of Conduct was updated by DOH Secretary gwiis on December 3, 2025. However, when referencing the DemocracyCraft Wiki page for the Doctor profession, we similarly find under the Rules section: “Do not sell doctor-only cures outside the hospital,” with the rules section further stating: “If you need to report a Doctor violating these rules or have complaints, report them to a Medical Specialist (MS) or Health Secretary. These rules are enforceable.” While an edit was made to this Wiki page on December 31st, this rule was not added in that edit, meaning that it has existed as a commonly known DOH policy since at least February of 2025, which was the last time this page was edited. DOH policy strictly prohibits doctors from selling health treatment items, meaning that Inknet was not acting in an official DOH capacity when selling those items. Regardless, even if Inkent was acting in an official capacity, as already established, the sale of health treatment items is illegal for anyone to do, regardless of profession.

3. Finally, the court was very clear in its ruling that this case was lost to legal interpretation. The court determined beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant sold the items in question. The court stated in its closing remarks that “Although the law clearly is meant to prohibit the unregulated sale of relevant items, the Court can't apply legislative intent so broadly in the context of a criminal prosecution. TLDR: Congress wrote a law that relied on DoH policy whilst also requiring the Court to only consider the law itself. Congress should fix this.” The verdict admitted that the intent of the law is to ban the conduct exhibited by the defendant, and yet refused to apply this known intent to the case seemingly due to its status as a criminal prosecution. While the core content of the verdict already exhibits a misunderstanding of the Commonwealth’s position, which has already been addressed in this appeal, this choice made regarding standards of interpretation deserves especial scrutiny. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is an evidentiary standard referring to the evidence required to prove the defendant’s guilt. The Court, in pursuit of its duties, is charged with interpreting the law – this duty is independent of the burden of proof in any particular trial. The presiding officer had found that the defendant sold those items beyond a reasonable doubt, but seemingly applied a harsher lens in interpreting the law due to the criminal nature of the trial. This inconsistent application of the law led to a verdict in favour of the defendant.

Supporting Evidence: [see reply]

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002