Lawsuit: In Session Ameslap v Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 126

[ameslap]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Your honor, pursuant to the rules of the Court, I request an immediate Emergency Injunction to release any deliberations that are approved from the [2025] FCR 78 Appeal FOI Request.

I am working on writing the complaint, but do not have it ready at this moment.

Thank you,
Ameslap

 

[ameslap]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Your honor, pursuant to the rules of the Court, I request an immediate Emergency Injunction to release any deliberations that are approved from the [2025] FCR 78 Appeal FOI Request.

I am working on writing the complaint, but do not have it ready at this moment.

Thank you,
Ameslap

To be clear, this is to prevent the release of any information, to "keep the status quo" as it were and keep everything sealed for the time being.

 

[Muggy21]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Temporary Injunction - Ameslap v. Commonwealth [2025] FCR 126

Granted.

The Commonwealth shall be enjoined from releasing any material relating to the FOI Request for [2025] FCR 78 Appeal. This order shall persist until 11/27/25 at 8:00pm EST. the cessation of this case.


Furthermore, @ameslap, please clarify to the Court the history of this FOI request. This is for deliberations into the appeal of FCR 78?


So ordered,
Judge Mug

 

[ameslap]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Temporary Injunction - Ameslap v. Commonwealth [2025] FCR 126

Granted.

The Commonwealth shall be enjoined from releasing any material relating to the FOI Request for [2025] FCR 78 Appeal. This order shall persist until 11/27/25 at 8:00pm EST.


Furthermore, @ameslap, please clarify to the Court the history of this FOI request. This is for deliberations into the appeal of FCR 78?


So ordered,
Judge Mug

Your honor, right now all that we are able to go off of is the Motion to Censure brought by Senator Anthony_org. The contents of the FOI Request and it's appeal is classified, though we hope to bring it to light during discovery.

I, Senator Anthony_org, motion for the Congress to CENSURE Representative xEndeavour for persisting in conflict-of-interest during the appeal of an FOI request related to the appeal of [2025] FCR 78 and ignoring multiple calls for him to recuse himself.

Reason:
xEndeavour has repeatedly engaged in a conflict-of-interest in the handling of an FOI appeal related to the appeal of [2025] FCR 78. Despite having served as counsel in that appeal, and in the preceding case xEndeavour has repeatedly pinged all Representatives and Senators in an attempt to influence the outcome of the vote.

At the onset of the FOI appeal, xEndeavour was kindly asked by the Speaker of the House to recuse on the basis of COI. Despite his pleas, and those of others, xEndeavour has chosen to participate in voting and discussion despite obvious conflict-of-interest. This behaviour is egregious and warrants a censure.

So we can assume that the Classified Materials Act was followed, so Toad made a FOI request to the judiciary, was denied, then appealed to Congress, where Congress then deliberated and voted within a closed hearing on whether to grant the FOI request or not.

Just to clarify further, I do not intend to contest the result of that appeal, but the act of deliberating and voting on whether or not to release the deliberations itself is unconstitutional as it violates separation of powers.

Complaint to follow, the holidays have made things tricky. I will be joined in Counsel by @asexualdinosaur and @juniperfig, just so the court is aware if they post instead of me.

 

[ameslap]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Ameslap (Represented by Ameslap, AsexualDinosaur, Juniperfig)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The Congress erred in their decision to hear and decide a Judicial Freedom of Information Appeal. By conducting such a hearing, and voting to approve or deny such a request, they have overstepped their Constitutional power by interpreting and executing the law.

I. PARTIES
1. Ameslap (Plaintiff per precedent set in [2025] FCR 87 and [2024] FCR 33)
2. Commonwealth (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. On November 5, ToadKing__ made his request to appeal the FOI decision from the judiciary.
2. On November 18, Congress began a hearing to decide the appeal.
3. On November 26, Senator Anthony_org moved to Censure Representative xEndeavour for their conduct during the FOI request related to the appeal of [2025] FCR 78.
4. The Classified Materials Act allows for Congress to overturn denied FOIs against the judiciary.
5. Before the repeal of the original classification act, the power of Judicial FOI appeals was vested within the Federal Court.
6. Judges within the courts are to act with no prejudice.
7. The Congress has the sole power to legislate the laws of the Commonwealth.
8. The Judiciary has the sole power to interpret the laws of the Commonwealth.
9. The Executive has the sole power to administer and enforce the laws of the Commonwealth.
10. The Classified Materials Act requires Congress to “order the release of material where it finds that the request was reasonable by simple majority vote”. When it comes to FOI Judicial Request Appeals.
11. This Clause allows congress to interpret was is “reasonable” when it comes to approving or denying the appeal.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1 .§Part I.2 The Congress serves to represent the will of the people and is responsible for debating, creating, removing, and amending laws and rules.
2. §Part II.14 The‌ ‌Judicial‌ ‌arm‌ ‌of‌ ‌Government,‌ ‌consisting‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌District‌ ‌Court,‌ ‌Federal Court,‌ ‌and‌ ‌Supreme‌ ‌Court,‌ ‌interpret‌ ‌the‌ ‌law‌ ‌as‌ ‌written‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌legislature‌ ‌and‌ ‌administered‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌Executive.‌
3. §Part III.23 Executive power is vested in the President and Cabinet. The Executive branch, consisting of the President, Cabinet, and government departments, administers and enforces the law respectively, as written by the legislature and interpreted by the judiciary.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Strike §8.7.b of the Classified Materials Act
2. Permanently enjoin Congress from forcing the release of SCR deliberations for not only [2025] FCR 78 Appeal, but for all FOI Requests for Judicial Deliberations.
3. Legal Fees as deemed appropriate.


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 26th day of November 2025

 

[Muggy21]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Temporary Injunction - Ameslap v. Commonwealth [2025] FCR 126

Granted.

The Commonwealth shall be enjoined from releasing any material relating to the FOI Request for [2025] FCR 78 Appeal. This order shall persist until 11/27/25 at 8:00pm EST.


Furthermore, @ameslap, please clarify to the Court the history of this FOI request. This is for deliberations into the appeal of FCR 78?


So ordered,
Judge Mug

The Court extends its Emergency Injunction until the cessation of this case.

 

[Muggy21]

Writ of Summons

@Kaiserin_ , is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Ameslap v Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 126

In the interest of more efficient Courtroom proceedings, the Court will permit responses to motions without prior Court permission. The deadline for said motions shall be 48 hours.

Furthermore, in obedience with Rule 1.4, parties are advised that engaging in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of this Court or its proceedings may be held in Contempt of Court.

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.

 

[Muggy21]

The Court has setup a Closed Court ticket on the Judiciary Discord pre-emptively, considering classified material may be brought in.

 

[End]

Requesting to file an amicus brief on constitutional accountability measures and how it relates to judicial deliberations.

 

[Muggy21]

Requesting to file an amicus brief on constitutional accountability measures and how it relates to judicial deliberations.

Declined.

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honor,

I am present on behalf of the Commonwealth.

 

[Muggy21]

Thanks Counselor,

Discovery shall last for 5 Days ending on 12/4/25 @ 12pm EST
@Franciscus I'll add you to the Closed Court, any classified mats can go there instead of here.

THIS IS STRUCK, AN ANSWER HAS NOT BE FILED.

 

[Franciscus]

Thanks Counselor,

Discovery shall last for 5 Days ending on 12/4/25 @ 12pm EST
@Franciscus I'll add you to the Closed Court, any classified mats can go there instead of here.

Your Honor,

What is the deadline for us to file an answer to complaint?

 

[Muggy21]

Your Honor,

What is the deadline for us to file an answer to complaint?

Jumping the gun, my bad lol
You have 48 Hours to offer an Answer.

 

[Franciscus]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Ameslap (Represented by Ameslap, AsexualDinosaur, Juniperfig)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

I. PARTIES
1. Ameslap (Plaintiff per precedent set in [2025] FCR 87 and [2024] FCR 33)
2. Commonwealth (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. On November 5, ToadKing__ made his request to appeal the FOI decision from the judiciary.
2. On November 18, Congress began a hearing to decide the appeal.
3. On November 26, Senator Anthony_org moved to Censure Representative xEndeavour for their conduct during the FOI request related to the appeal of [2025] FCR 78.
4. The Classified Materials Act allows for Congress to overturn denied FOIs against the judiciary.
5. Before the repeal of the original classification act, the power of Judicial FOI appeals was vested within the Federal Court.
6. Judges within the courts are to act with no prejudice.
7. The Congress has the sole power to legislate the laws of the Commonwealth.
8. The Judiciary has the sole power to interpret the laws of the Commonwealth.
9. The Executive has the sole power to administer and enforce the laws of the Commonwealth.
10. The Classified Materials Act requires Congress to “order the release of material where it finds that the request was reasonable by simple majority vote”. When it comes to FOI Judicial Request Appeals.
11. This Clause allows congress to interpret was is “reasonable” when it comes to approving or denying the appeal.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1 .§Part I.2 The Congress serves to represent the will of the people and is responsible for debating, creating, removing, and amending laws and rules.
2. §Part II.14 The‌ ‌Judicial‌ ‌arm‌ ‌of‌ ‌Government,‌ ‌consisting‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌District‌ ‌Court,‌ ‌Federal Court,‌ ‌and‌ ‌Supreme‌ ‌Court,‌ ‌interpret‌ ‌the‌ ‌law‌ ‌as‌ ‌written‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌legislature‌ ‌and‌ ‌administered‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌Executive.‌
3. §Part III.23 Executive power is vested in the President and Cabinet. The Executive branch, consisting of the President, Cabinet, and government departments, administers and enforces the law respectively, as written by the legislature and interpreted by the judiciary.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Strike §8.7.b of the Classified Materials Act
2. Permanently enjoin Congress from forcing the release of SCR deliberations for not only [2025] FCR 78 Appeal, but for all FOI Requests for Judicial Deliberations.
3. Legal Fees as deemed appropriate.


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 26th day of November 2025

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE

Your Honor,

As a member of Congressional Staff (Exhibit D-001, Exhibit D-002), Ameslap would have access to certain congressional materials, such as congressional tickets. That being said, Ameslap would not be permitted under the law necessarily to read all classified materials in the congress; under Classified Materials Act 8(7)(b), any congressional oversight hearing regarding an appeal of Judicial FOI would be "[a] joint closed and classified congressional hearing", and no automatic classification appears granted to press assistants.

In Factual Allegation No. 1, Ameslap alleges the specific name of an individual who allegedly filed an FOI appeal. After conducting a keyword search, I did not find a message in which this information was not publicly stated or alleged on the DemocracyCraft discord outside of classified settings until after the submission of the Complaint in this case (see: Post No. 5; Exhibit D-003 and D-004). The defense (following another keyword search) is likewise unable to find evidence that information relating to alleged date given in the second factual allegation regarding when an appeal oversight hearing allegedly began (a fact classified from its inception) was itself publicly alleged (see: Post No. 5; Exhibits D-005 and D-006).

Indeed, releasing information gathered from classified material in this manner may constitute Breach of Integrity under Criminal Code Act Part III, Section 10 et seq. ("A person commits an offence if the person... shares classified information without authorisation"), a criminal offense.

If the basis for these allegations was acquired illegally - such as through the Plaintiff's illegal reading of any discussions relating to without proper security clearance and subsequent use in creating this case, and this occurred prior to the filing of this case, then we simply cannot allow parallel construction here.

We therefore ask Your Honor to order the Plaintiff to show cause with respect to the first and second factual allegations. If the factual allegations proceeded from illicit means, we ask that Your Honor strike them and order estoppel preventing the Plaintiff from arguing for such facts in this case.

Spoiler: Exhibit D-001

Spoiler: Exhibit D-002

Spoiler: Exhibit D-003

Spoiler: Exhibit D-004

Spoiler: Exhibit D-005

Spoiler: Exhibit D-006

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honor,

The Defense requests an 18-hour extension to file the Answer to complaint.

Jumping the gun, my bad lol
You have 48 Hours to offer an Answer.

 

[Muggy21]

Your Honor,

The Defense requests an 18-hour extension to file the Answer to complaint.

Granted,
Answer due 12/2/25 @ 9pm EST.

 

[ameslap]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE

Your Honor,

As a member of Congressional Staff (Exhibit D-001, Exhibit D-002), Ameslap would have access to certain congressional materials, such as congressional tickets. That being said, Ameslap would not be permitted under the law necessarily to read all classified materials in the congress; under Classified Materials Act 8(7)(b), any congressional oversight hearing regarding an appeal of Judicial FOI would be "[a] joint closed and classified congressional hearing", and no automatic classification appears granted to press assistants.

In Factual Allegation No. 1, Ameslap alleges the specific name of an individual who allegedly filed an FOI appeal. After conducting a keyword search, I did not find a message in which this information was not publicly stated or alleged on the DemocracyCraft discord outside of classified settings until after the submission of the Complaint in this case (see: Post No. 5; Exhibit D-003 and D-004). The defense (following another keyword search) is likewise unable to find evidence that information relating to alleged date given in the second factual allegation regarding when an appeal oversight hearing allegedly began (a fact classified from its inception) was itself publicly alleged (see: Post No. 5; Exhibits D-005 and D-006).

Indeed, releasing information gathered from classified material in this manner may constitute Breach of Integrity under Criminal Code Act Part III, Section 10 et seq. ("A person commits an offence if the person... shares classified information without authorisation"), a criminal offense.

If the basis for these allegations was acquired illegally - such as through the Plaintiff's illegal reading of any discussions relating to without proper security clearance and subsequent use in creating this case, and this occurred prior to the filing of this case, then we simply cannot allow parallel construction here.

We therefore ask Your Honor to order the Plaintiff to show cause with respect to the first and second factual allegations. If the factual allegations proceeded from illicit means, we ask that Your Honor strike them and order estoppel preventing the Plaintiff from arguing for such facts in this case.

Spoiler: Exhibit D-001

View attachment 68037

Spoiler: Exhibit D-002

View attachment 68043

Spoiler: Exhibit D-003

View attachment 68039

Spoiler: Exhibit D-004

View attachment 68041

Spoiler: Exhibit D-005

View attachment 68044

Spoiler: Exhibit D-006

View attachment 68045

Brief

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION
Your honour,

There are multiple issues with this objection:

1. I was given Security Clearance.
2. The Toad FOI Request was never Classified.
3. I claim Whistle Blower Protection.
4. Classification was never enforceable due to the illegal activity within them.

1. I WAS GIVEN A SECURITY CLEARANCE
The Defendant claims that I "illegally" viewed classified materials. However, under the Classified Materials Act, access is lawful where the individual was granted access.

I was added to the relevant ticket by virtue of my role. This power came from someone who had the authority over Congressional Tickets. At any point, the officers within Congress who control Classified information could have removed me, but they did not. This is explicit permission to access and should show that I did indeed have the proper security clearance to view the information.

2. TOAD'S FOI REQUEST AND THE APPEAL WAS NEVER CLASSIFIED
The Classified Materials Act requires:

(1) A document, file, message, or Discord channel must be explicitly marked by an authorised individual for classification to be enforceable. The designation, scope, and duration of the classification must be written down in the appropriate list.

As shown by the attached screenshot, the Toad FOI Request never had any Classification Message, and while the Appeal had the markings, it did not have the scope or duration of the classification as required.

Spoiler: Screenshots from FOI Request

3. I CLAIM WHISTLE BLOWER PROTECTION

(8) An individual who discloses classified material without authorisation may claim protection as a whistleblower under the Whistleblowers Act (or subsequent similar Act) where all of the following apply:

(a) The disclosure served a clear and compelling public interest;

(b) No effective or reasonable internal route existed for raising the concern or when this route was used no significant action was taken; and

(c) The individual acted in good faith and not for personal or political gain.

A - My disclosure concerned Congress violating the boundaries of its authority, which is one of the highest forms of public-interest concern possible.

B - There is no possible route. The messages were only visible to those with access. The Speaker or President of the Senate was the presiding officer overseeing the alleged improper vote. You cannot report Congress to Congress for violating the law.

C - My motives are clear. I wish to protect judicial independence and challenge governmental overreach.

4. CLASSIFICATION WAS NEVER ENFORCEABLE DUE TO THE ILLEGAL ACTIVITY OF CONGRESS
Any such classification was moot due to the illegal activity of Congress:

(9) Classification may strictly not be applied for any of the following reasons:

(a) To cover up breaches of laws, rules or regulations;

I witnessed a crime occur when Congress overreached its authority to interpret the Classification Act and vote on the FOI Appeal. The contents within the ticket where these illegal actions took place have no classification.

 

[Muggy21]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order - Objection (P: #15) , Commonwealth

For the purpose of this objection, the Court need only consider if the evidence/facts in question were obtained legally (see bigpappa140 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 81, Vanguard & Co. v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 49). The Commonwealth raised several arguments as to why Facts 1 and 2 should be struck from the Complaint, but have failed to articulate that Congressional tickets in their inception are automatically classified. On reading the Classified Materials Act, it is clear to this Court that the appeal undertaken by Congress is meant to be classified. Thus the question before the Court is the following: "Are Congressional tickets classified under the CMA?"

The Court need not formulate an answer here; The Commonwealth did not specifically assert that Congressional tickets are classified. Thus, considering the Plaintiff had access to the ticket and released information presumably defined as PUBLIC under CMA §(4)(d), the Court sees no reason to strike Facts 1 and 2.


OVERRULED.

 

[Franciscus]

Answer to Complaint

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Ameslap
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT​

1. NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that "On November 5, ToadKing__ made his request to appeal the FOI decision from the judiciary".
2. NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that "On November 18, Congress began a hearing to decide the appeal".
3. AFFIRMS that "On November 26, Senator Anthony_org moved to Censure Representative xEndeavour for their conduct during the FOI request related to the appeal of [2025] FCR 78".
4. DENIES that "The Classified Materials Act allows for Congress to overturn denied FOIs against the judiciary" on rhetoric, NOTING that FOIs are not filed against parties. AFFIRM inasmuch as this suggest that the Congress is given a task of overseeing appeals of FOI requests that are made to the Judiciary.
5. NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that before the repeal of the "original classification act", the power of Judicial FOI appeals was vested within the Federal Court, NOTING that the original form of the Classification Act lacked FOI entirely.
6. DENIES that "Judges within the courts are to act with no prejudice", NOTING that at least one Judicial officer has been forcibly recused after initially refusing to recuse themselves for concerns of related to bias ([2022] SCR 20 - Appeal Request, Post No. 5) and that history repeats itself. AFFIRMS inasmuch as "are to act" is taken as being aspirational in nature.
7. NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that "The Congress has the sole power to legislate the laws of the Commonwealth", NOTING that Const. 2(8) grants the Congress additional powers to "review and oversee actions by the Executive and Judicial branches to ensure accountability, prevent abuse of power, confirm appointments, and ratify treaties".
8. NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that "The Judiciary has the sole power to interpret the laws of the Commonwealth", NOTING that (for example) the Judiciary is also granted additional powers under Const. 14 to "establish and maintain a Public Defender program to provide the assistance of legal counsel".
9. NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that "The Executive has the sole power to administer and enforce the laws of the Commonwealth".
10. AFFIRMS The Classified Materials Act requires Congress to “order the release of material where it finds that the request was reasonable by simple majority vote”, as it pertains to appeals of Freedom of Information requests seeking information from the Judiciary which were denied..
11. NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that this Clause allows congress to interpret was is “reasonable” when it comes to approving or denying the appeal.

II. DEFENCES​

1. Congress has explicit constitutional authority to "review and oversee actions by the Executive and Judicial branches", which extends to classification and freedom of information.​

1.1 Background: Congressional Hearings and Early Understandings of Classification.​

Congressional hearings and the power to compel testimony have long framed Redmont’s oversight of the Executive and other public bodies.

They were formalized in September 2020, when the Congress passed the Congressional Hearings Act (see: Exhibit D-101). This act permitted the Congress to hold hearings and demand answers from members of the Executive. It also created the crime of "Contempt of Congress", which occurred (among other cases) when an individual "won't provide information requested by the House or the Senate" or when an individual "obstructs an inquiry by a congressional committee". Even though that Act was later rescinded, it reflects the early constitutional understanding that Congress could demand information and hold people criminally liable for failure to provide it. That understanding persisted in the Legislative Standards Act, which continues (as of the passage of the Legislative Standards Amendment Act) to authorize subpoenas by simple majority and require that motions state a reason. (As for enforcement of non‑compliance, Criminal Code Act Part III, Section 6(a) handles it now, following a codification of a consolidated criminal law.)

1.2 Codification of Government Secrets under APGI.​

In light of the breadth of the subpoena power, there was some discussion for how this may interact with classified materials, which were understood at the time by common law principles. As shown in Exhibit D-102, the Congress proposed a classfication law in December 2020, but it was vetoed by then-President Westray. At that time, the then-President's comments inform us, it was well established that "should Congress wish to investigate a specific situation, they have the ability to investigate via a subpoena".

In March 2021, the Act of Privatisation of Government Information (APGI) was proposed and signed into law and formally codified privacy of certain government information (see Exhibit D-103). It provided a statutory law basis for classification of certain information that was quite sweeping: "Every Information/message sent in a government channel... related to state affairs" was considered to be a government secret under the law, and nobody could disclose the information except by "official government announcement" under pain of fines (or, if repeated, removal from office). No longer was common law the basis for classification of information; the APGI was.

1.3 Passage of the original Classification Act.​

The Congress quickly found certain problems with the APGI; the Congress found that the APGI provides "no clause or reasons as to why it is not immune from Political Communication", and desired "create a form of document classification" (see: Exhibit D-104). As such, the Classification Act was proposed by xEndeavour in late March 2021, was signed on 9 April 2021, and became law on 9 May 2021.

The Classification Act was different than the APGI; while the APGI took a broad stroke in broadly banning sharing of information, the Classification Act created a tiered system of classifications and also a system of security clearances to access certain information. It also created certain immunities as it pertains to classified information, which remain unchanged through the law's most recent form prior:

Spoiler: Immunities

8 - Immunities
(1) Judicial Privilege - Legal immunity enjoyed by judges and parties of litigation whereby information being used in court as evidence is exempt from Breach of Integrity. Content of the evidence should be considered to determine if an open court is appropriate.
(2) Executive Privilege - Legal immunity enjoyed by the Executive whereby the Executive may deny producing a document to the legislative on the basis of cabinet solidarity or national security. This may be overturned by the courts.
(3) Congressional Privilege - Legal immunity enjoyed by members of Congress whereby Information provided to chambers or committees is exempt from civil or criminal liability for actions done or statements made in the course of their legislative duties. Anonymous witness information does not apply to this immunity.

At the time of the Classification Act's original passing, Freedom of Information was not contained in the act. This would only come in time, and through subsequent amendments.

1.4. Classification Amendment Act and Freedom of Information.​

In November 2021, the Classification Amendment Act was passed and signed into law. This added Freedom of information, under the principle that "Congress directly represents the people in government. Therefore congress does not have the power to withhold information from the public". Upon initial passage, the Congress specified that "All information shared with a congressional committee or chamber shall be de-classified as well as made public by their respective presiding officer as soon as possible after it has been shared" (emphasis mine).

Shortly thereafter, the Congress passed the "Classification Amendment Repair Act", which provided a balance of transparency with the principles of whistleblower protection. And in August 2022, the Congress expanded the ability to classify information in passing the "Freedom of Confidentiality Act". Collectively, these measures clarified who may classify, how long classifications last, and how Freedom of Information (FOI) interacts with classification (e.g., redactions/partial releases), while keeping judicial independence intact. Related statutes also constrained disclosure; for example, the Privacy Act limits release of personal information even when FOI applies.

At every step, the modification to the classification scheme was done by the Congress; whenever the Congress wanted to make the scheme more permissive or less permissive, it passed laws that did this.

1.5. Passage of the Classified Materials Act.​

In July 2025 Congress replaced the 2021 scheme with the Classified Materials Act (CMA) (see D‑105). The CMA standardised designations (SECRET, RESTRICTED, OFFICIAL, PUBLIC) and identified Primary Classification Officers (PCOs) for each branch. The CMA also created a coherent FOI pathway: any person may request records; requests must be answered within seven days and may be denied only if ‘unreasonable’ (outside jurisdiction, harmful to national security or government operations, or so vague as to be unfulfillable). Appeals of Executive or Congressional denials go to the Federal Court (§8(7)(a)); congress has chosen to delegate this responsibility there, but ultimately could change the law to allow for some different review process.

In line with the oversight powers of the Congress discussed below in 1.6, appeals of Judicial denials go to a joint, closed & classified congressional hearing (§8(7)(b)) that decides only whether the request was ‘reasonable’ and may order release with redactions or conditions. The statute forbids abusive classification—including to cover up illegality or reputational harm—and confirms that both courts and Congress may subpoena classified material with appropriate protections (§8(9)–(10)).

1.6 The Constitution permits Congressional Oversight over FOI appeals.​

Section 2(8) of the Constitution states that "Congress will review and oversee actions by the Executive and Judicial branches to ensure accountability, prevent abuse of power, confirm appointments, and ratify treaties". This oversight power is clearly constitutional in nature (see: 12700k V. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 121, Post No. 2 "A constitutional amendment or provision is not subject to constitutional review, as the Constitution cannot violate itself" ).

When the constitution assigns the power to "review and oversee actions by the Executive and Judicial Branches", it does this plainly and directly - this is a power properly reserved to the Congress that other branches cannot interfere with (c.f. Toadking v The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] SCR 18, Opinion Par. 3 "The constitution assigns the confirmation of judicial nominees to the Senate alone, the House of Representatives has no role in this process"). The law implements this constitituional authority directly to handle its own enumerated powers, and the "Congress may pass any law necessary and proper to carry out its enumerated powers" (Const. 2(7)).

1.7 Conclusion: Congress exercises its constitituional oversight powers in handling FOI appeals of the judiciary​

When exercising its handling of FOI appeals in line with statute, the Congress is using its constitutial oversight power over the Judiciary. As the history and traditions described above indicate, the Congress has always had a broad authority when issuing subpoenas and releasing classified materials in the past. That the Congress chose not to delegate its oversight powers to the court with respect to disputes over Judicial branch appeals does not eliminate the Congress's constitutional authority. This court should not be confused: Congress has the explicit authority to review and oversee other branches, and the history and traditions of this nation indicate that it may demand the production of documents to do so.

2. The Plaintiff's second prayer would unconstitutionally strip the Congress of its authority to review and oversee actions by the Judicial branch​

As stated above in 1.6:

When the constitution assigns the power to "review and oversee actions by the Executive and Judicial Branches", it does this plainly and directly - this is a power properly reserved to the Congress that other branches cannot interfere with (c.f. Toadking v The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] SCR 18, Opinion Par. 3 "The constitution assigns the confirmation of judicial nominees to the Senate alone, the House of Representatives has no role in this process")

The Plaintiff's second prayer asks to "Permanently enjoin Congress from forcing the release of SCR deliberations for not only [2025] FCR 78 Appeal, but for all FOI Requests for Judicial Deliberations".

The Court cannot prohibit the Congress from exercising its review and oversight power permanently for "all FOI Requests for Judicial Deliberations". This is excessively vague, and read broadly would prevent the Congress from exercising its lawful authority under Const. 2(8) to force the Judicary to produce information to the Congress.

III. Evidence​

Spoiler: Exhibit D-101: Congressional Hearings Act

Congressional Hearings Act

Spoiler: Exhibit D-102: Classification Act December 2020

Classification Act December 2020

Spoiler: Exhibit D-103: APGI Act

APGI Act

Spoiler: Exhibit D-104: Classification Act

Classification Act

Spoiler: Exhibit D-105: Classified Materials Act (rescinded bill)

Classified Materials Act

Spoiler: Exhibit D-106: Classified Materials Act (Act of Congress)

Classified Materials Act

IV. Witness List​

• Krix - Posted the Congressional Hearings Act and Classification Act December 2020 to the Forums
• Westray - Vetoed the Classification Act December 2020
• Ansgard_Ist - Wrote the APGI Act
• Intercepticon - Proposed the APGI Act
• MilkCrack - Wrote the portion of the "Classification Amendment Act", which inserted Freedom of Information into the Classification Act
• Mhadsher101 - Authored the "Freedom of Confidentiality Act", which modified Freedom of Information within the Classification Act
• Omegabiebel - Co-authored the Classified Materials Act
• EATB - Proposed the Classified Materials Act
• Juniperfig - Former President and Federal Court Judge

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 Second day of December Two-Thousand Twenty Five

Motion

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

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff has failed to articulate a valid claim under the law. Under Rule 5.5, a dismissal may be warranted where a Plaintiff has committed a "failure to state a claim for relief".

The three claims for relief are as follows:

1 .§Part I.2 The Congress serves to represent the will of the people and is responsible for debating, creating, removing, and amending laws and rules.
2. §Part II.14 The‌ ‌Judicial‌ ‌arm‌ ‌of‌ ‌Government,‌ ‌consisting‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌District‌ ‌Court,‌ ‌Federal Court,‌ ‌and‌ ‌Supreme‌ ‌Court,‌ ‌interpret‌ ‌the‌ ‌law‌ ‌as‌ ‌written‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌legislature‌ ‌and‌ ‌administered‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌Executive.‌
3. §Part III.23 Executive power is vested in the President and Cabinet. The Executive branch, consisting of the President, Cabinet, and government departments, administers and enforces the law respectively, as written by the legislature and interpreted by the judiciary.

None of this articulates why a claim might arise from the alleged facts. We proffer that if the claims don't actually refer to the facts at all, the case would fail to state a claim on its face. As such, we seek dismissal under Rule 5.5.

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS,

Your Honor,

The Defense seeks dismissal on the following further grounds:

Rule 5.12 (Lack of Personal Jurisdiction)​

In order to survive a motion to dismiss under rule 5.12, the Plaintiff must demonstrate the following to the Court (see: Rule 2.1):

1. [The Plaintiff] Suffered some injury caused by a clear second party; or is affected by an application of law.
2. The cause of injury was against the law.
3. Remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision.

The Plaintiff has not shown that the Plaintiff suffered some injury caused by a second party, and the Plaintiff is not affected by an application of law here. Recent Federal Court precedent indicates that lack of personal harm demonstrated may justify dismissal on grounds of standing, even sua ponte (see: Dismissal order in Anthony_Org v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 117, Post No. 2: "Even though the Plaintiff is a member of the Senate, they still lack standing. No harm was done to them personally, and if there was indeed harm, it would be to the Congress as an institution, not to the individual members"; emphasis mine).

As such, in line with recent precedent in Anthony_Org v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 117, the Defense seeks dismissal.

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

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

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff has failed to articulate a valid claim under the law. Under Rule 5.5, a dismissal may be warranted where a Plaintiff has committed a "failure to state a claim for relief".

The three claims for relief are as follows:



None of this articulates why a claim might arise from the alleged facts. We proffer that if the claims don't actually refer to the facts at all, the case would fail to state a claim on its face. As such, we seek dismissal under Rule 5.5.

DENIED, only insofar as Plaintiff may adjust Complaint during Discovery.

If he fails to do so, the Court will revisit the matter.

 

[ameslap]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS,

Your Honor,

The Defense seeks dismissal on the following further grounds:

Rule 5.12 (Lack of Personal Jurisdiction)​

In order to survive a motion to dismiss under rule 5.12, the Plaintiff must demonstrate the following to the Court (see: Rule 2.1):


The Plaintiff has not shown that the Plaintiff suffered some injury caused by a second party, and the Plaintiff is not affected by an application of law here. Recent Federal Court precedent indicates that lack of personal harm demonstrated may justify dismissal on grounds of standing, even sua ponte (see: Dismissal order in Anthony_Org v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 117, Post No. 2: "Even though the Plaintiff is a member of the Senate, they still lack standing. No harm was done to them personally, and if there was indeed harm, it would be to the Congress as an institution, not to the individual members"; emphasis mine).

As such, in line with recent precedent in Anthony_Org v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 117, the Defense seeks dismissal.

Brief

RESPONSE TO MOTION

Your honor,

FCR 117 is not the proper precedent in this instance for multiple reasons:

1. FCR 117 was granted an appeal to the Supreme Court, where the court is just now deciding if the dismissal was not warranted.
2. FCR 117 dealt with a plaintiff that had other means of remedy by being a member of the offending institution.
3. FCR 87 and FCR 33 show the most consistent viewpoint on this matter. A potentially mis-guided (although still rather handsome and funny) judge should not be able to take Redmont to the Dark Ages where citizens can check the balance of the government through the courts for constitutional violations.

 

[ameslap]

Brief

MOTION/NOTICE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

As soon as discovery opens, the Plaintiff will be amending his complaint to read:

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Violation of Part II – Interference With Judicial Independence and the Deliberative Process
Part II of the Redmont Constitution establishes the Judiciary as an independent branch responsible for interpreting the law. Under the Classified Materials Act, judicial deliberations are expressly designated JUD-RESTRICTED by default, reflecting the constitutional requirement that courts maintain a confidential deliberative process free from legislative interference.

By voting to publicly release judicial deliberations, Congress intruded into the Judiciary’s internal decision-making sphere, undermining judicial independence in violation of the constitutional separation of powers. This constitutes an unconstitutional encroachment upon the Judiciary.

(6) Judicial deliberations will be designated as at least JUD-RESTRICTED by default for the duration of a case, unless otherwise specified by the PCO of that case. This classification will lapse only and automatically upon the delivery of a verdict, unless extended by the Supreme Court.

2. Violation of the Classified Materials Act – Improper Override of JUD-RESTRICTED Classification
Congress’s vote to release the deliberations constitutes an unlawful bypass of the CMA’s classification hierarchy. The Legislature does not possess unilateral authority to declassify judicial materials that are specifically reserved to judicial classification jurisdiction.

By releasing JUD-RESTRICTED material without proper declassification by the Judiciary or adherence to CMA safeguards, Congress violated the Act.

3. Violation of the CMA – Abuse of FOI-Appeal Authority
Although the CMA grants Congress authority to review FOI appeals, that authority must be exercised within statutory limits and consistent with constitutional structure. The FOI-appeal process does not authorize Congress to disclose materials whose classification is jurisdictionally reserved to another branch. JUD-RESTRICTED deliberations fall exclusively under the Judiciary’s authority.

By using the FOI-appeal mechanism to order release of material outside its jurisdiction, Congress acted in excess of its statutory authority and abused the appeal process, violating the CMA.

4. Violation of Part I and Part II – Legislative Usurpation of Non-Legislative Powers
Part I vests Congress with legislative authority; Part II vests courts with interpretive authority. Congress’s vote to release internal judicial deliberations constitutes the exercise of a non-legislative, interpretive function reserved for the Judiciary under the CMA and the Constitution.

By asserting power over judicial deliberations, Congress usurped an authority constitutionally assigned to another branch. This breach of separation of powers constitutes a structural constitutional offense.

 

[ameslap]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

The Plaintiff requests the Commonwealth to submit into discovery (when it opens) all material related to the FOI Request for [2025] FCR 78 Appeal, this is to include the Appeal to Congress.

This request is made through the court due to the injunction prohibiting the Commonwealth from releasing any such information.

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS,

Your Honor,

The Defense seeks dismissal on the following further grounds:

Rule 5.12 (Lack of Personal Jurisdiction)​

In order to survive a motion to dismiss under rule 5.12, the Plaintiff must demonstrate the following to the Court (see: Rule 2.1):


The Plaintiff has not shown that the Plaintiff suffered some injury caused by a second party, and the Plaintiff is not affected by an application of law here. Recent Federal Court precedent indicates that lack of personal harm demonstrated may justify dismissal on grounds of standing, even sua ponte (see: Dismissal order in Anthony_Org v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 117, Post No. 2: "Even though the Plaintiff is a member of the Senate, they still lack standing. No harm was done to them personally, and if there was indeed harm, it would be to the Congress as an institution, not to the individual members"; emphasis mine).

As such, in line with recent precedent in Anthony_Org v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 117, the Defense seeks dismissal.

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order - Motion to Dismiss under Rule 5.12, Commonwealth (P#21)


DENIED.

Under Rule 5.12, a Motion to Dismiss may be made "if the plaintiff fails to have sufficient standing in order to pursue the case." On its face, the Plaintiff, in his personal capacity, was not (nor may be reasonably construed to be) directly harmed by the alleged action in the Complaint. However, the personal jurisdictional requirements may be "waived" if the complaint is a public-interest suit.

Is this a public-interest suit?
For this assertion, the Court relies on its prior definition in its dismissal order in PluraGlassHouse v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 117. In that case, the 100% amazing and totally not-pancake-munching judge, found that public interest litigation must assert a cognizable and distinguished harm. Essentially "you must approach the Court with a controversy and said controversy must, on its own, be narrowly crafted as to reasonable support a unique controversy" (see PluraGlassHouse v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 117 ). On a plain reading of the Complaint, the Court can identify a controversy, the potential illegality of the Classified Materials Act. In terms of the unique controversy point, the Prayers of the Complaint do not comport with this standard. The Court is not a legislative body. Should this Court strike the challenged provision of the Classified Materials Act, Congress retains full authority to enact a revised version consistent with this Court’s ruling or that of the Supreme Court on appeal. Accordingly, the Court cannot permanently enjoin all future actions taken pursuant to such legislation, as the judiciary may only restrain conduct that, at the time it occurs, contravenes the Constitution and prevailing law. Nonetheless, there exists a distinguishable controversy that is cognizable before this Court.

As a note, the Court does not find Anthony_Org v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 117 neither persuasive nor controlling authority in this matter. It wasn't sufficiently plead as to give this Court any insight on how to develop the recognized public-interest standing exception.


So ordered,
Judge Mug

 

[Muggy21]

Discovery is now open.
Deadline 12/8/25 @ 9AM EST.

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

The Plaintiff requests the Commonwealth to submit into discovery (when it opens) all material related to the FOI Request for [2025] FCR 78 Appeal, this is to include the Appeal to Congress.

This request is made through the court due to the injunction prohibiting the Commonwealth from releasing any such information.

Response

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL

Your Honor,

A good bit of this information is classified, so we believe that we may need Your Honor to declassify such information before it were to be provided to the Court.

What's more, the Emergency Injunction states that the Commonwealth is barred from "releasing any material relating to the FOI Request for [2025] FCR 78 Appeal". The request here is to release "all material related to the FOI Request for [2025] FCR 78 Appeal" as a part of discovery.

While this generates a bit of whiplash, the Commonwealth does not oppose this request, and therefore asks to be released from the emergency injunction in line with the discovery request.