Lawsuit: Pending malka v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 87

aubunny

aubunny

Moderator
Moderator
Commerce Secretary
Commerce Department
Education Department
Supporter
5th Anniversary Change Maker Staff Statesman
malka
malka
Commerce Secretary
Joined
Apr 7, 2025
Messages
146

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


malka
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

The commonwealth has failed to uphold its own independent checks and balances in the government, and as such, the system as a whole is at risk of total collapse of trust and function within all branches of government. The constitution has statutes in place specifically to avoid the level of distrust and dishonesty found within the Judiciary today.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES
1. malka
2. Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS
1. The Classified Materials Act allows for Congress to overturn denied FOIs against the judiciary
2. The Judiciary is not required to act in an unbiased manner
3. FCR 81, at the date of August 13th, was an ongoing case
4. FCR 81, if not dismissed, could return to the Supreme Court upon appeal.
5. The constitution states that "Judicial power is vested in the courts."
6. The Federal Court has "Appellate Jurisdiction"
7. Part IV, Section 32, Subsection 13 of the constitution reads: "Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status."
8. Part IV, Section 32, Subsection 15 of the Constitution reads: "Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure."
9. Before the repeal of the original classification act, the power of Judicial FOI appeals was vested within the Federal Court.
10. Judges within the federal court are to act with no prejudice.
11. The act of remanding to a different court is not the delivery of a verdict.
12. SCR 11[2025] Is functionally the same case as FCR 81.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. By moving the power of appellate review of FOI requests from the Federal Court to Congress, they have violated the Commonwealth's constitutional right Against Unreasonable Search or Seizure by Congress, which has no duty of care to uphold the self-given Judicial power.
2. This power and lack of unbiased decision have already reared their ugly head, as they have then violated their own law by approving the Judicial communications in the SCR of the FCR 81 [at the time SCR 11] case, which was ongoing at the time. This resulted in conversations that happened in regards to an ongoing case to be revealed to the public, including the plaintiff of said case. This activity has resulted in the spoliation of the case and a breach of judicial privacy of rightfully classified information. This would not have happened under an impartial judge.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The Classified Materials Act is struck as unconstitutional.
2. A public apology by the Speaker of the House and President of the Senate for their motions towards the FOI approval.
3. Legal Fees, subject to the judge.

V: WITNESSES

1) Smallfries - Supreme Court Justice targeted by biased unclassification of information
2) xEndeavour - Author of the original Classification Act.

VI: EVIDENCE

1) For the sake of brevity, we motion to include the entirety of FCR 81 under the title P-01

2)
1755543833945.png
, Particularly, the date.
1755543886503.png

1755544119323.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 19st day of August, 2025

 
Last edited:

Motion


MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

There is clear damage caused to the judiciary by allowing the congress to appeal FOI requests without proper oversight and judicial ruling.

Therefor, for the duration of the injunction, I request

The following be striked from the Classified Materials Act

(b) If the request was made to the Judiciary, the appeal shall be lodged in Congress. A joint closed and classified congressional hearing shall review the request and order the release of material where it finds that the request was reasonable by simple majority vote. Congress may impose redactions or conditions on any such disclosure by simple majority vote.

There is very active and conscious risk towards the commonwealth by allowing congress to overturn foi denials by the judiciary currently, including risks that could bias this very case. Therefor, we motion to put a temporary pause until proper judicial ruling has been decided upon.

 

Writ of Summons


@gribble19 is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Malka v. The Commonwealth of Redmont 2025 [FCR] 87

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.

 
aubunny said:

Motion


MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

There is clear damage caused to the judiciary by allowing the congress to appeal FOI requests without proper oversight and judicial ruling.

Therefor, for the duration of the injunction, I request

The following be striked from the Classified Materials Act

(b) If the request was made to the Judiciary, the appeal shall be lodged in Congress. A joint closed and classified congressional hearing shall review the request and order the release of material where it finds that the request was reasonable by simple majority vote. Congress may impose redactions or conditions on any such disclosure by simple majority vote.

There is very active and conscious risk towards the commonwealth by allowing congress to overturn foi denials by the judiciary currently, including risks that could bias this very case. Therefor, we motion to put a temporary pause until proper judicial ruling has been decided upon.

Click to expand...
Granted. The wording in the Classified Materials Act as listed below is hereby suspended until this case is either resolved or the injunction is lifted.

(b) If the request was made to the Judiciary, the appeal shall be lodged in Congress. A joint closed and classified congressional hearing shall review the request and order the release of material where it finds that the request was reasonable by simple majority vote. Congress may impose redactions or conditions on any such disclosure by simple majority vote.
 
Commonwealth is present, your honor.
 
juniperfig said:
Commonwealth is present, your honor.
Click to expand...

Objection


Breach of procedure.

The commonwealth replied after the 72 hour deadline had elapsed. as per the writ of summons, proper procedure to default judgement should be applied.

 
aubunny said:

Objection


Breach of procedure.

The commonwealth replied after the 72 hour deadline had elapsed. as per the writ of summons, proper procedure to default judgement should be applied.

Click to expand...
Response to Objection

True enough. I plead for the Honourable and Learned Judge Ameslap to show mercy to the Commonwealth, as I have had a busy week (I was recently made the President). I would like to retroactively request a 4 hour and 1 minute extension to the summons deadline due to these extraordinary factors.
 
aubunny said:

Objection


Breach of procedure.

The commonwealth replied after the 72 hour deadline had elapsed. as per the writ of summons, proper procedure to default judgement should be applied.

Click to expand...
juniperfig said:
Response to Objection

True enough. I plead for the Honourable and Learned Judge Ameslap to show mercy to the Commonwealth, as I have had a busy week (I was recently made the President). I would like to retroactively request a 4 hour and 1 minute extension to the summons deadline due to these extraordinary factors.
Click to expand...
Given the significance of this case as a constitutional matter and that the Commonwealth was within a reasonable time of the deadline, I shall deny the objection. This case shall move forward.

The Commonwealth is warned that any further missed deadlines shall result in contempt and/or other lawfully available punishments to this court.

The Defense has 48 hours to post its Answer to the complaint.
 
Your Honor:

This message serves to notify you that, following the departure of juniperfig from the role of Attorney General, I will be representing the Commonwealth in this case in my capacity as a DoJ prosecutor.
 
Franciscus said:
Your Honor:

This message serves to notify you that, following the departure of juniperfig from the role of Attorney General, I will be representing the Commonwealth in this case in my capacity as a DoJ prosecutor.
Click to expand...
Neato! Go let me know if you need any additional time on the answer.
 
Your Honor:

The Commonwealth requests a 48-hour extension.
 
Your Honour,

The RCLU is a civil rights organization that strives in part to ensure the citizenry of Redmont have access to a free and spirited judiciary. We hold the government to account and ensure the public are afforded their rights. In this matter, may the RCLU file an amicus curiae brief to discuss the constitutional implications of the Complaint and other similar discussion points?

COI Disclaimer: I'm a Compliance Officer in DOC and I work under Multiman155 at MZLD. Considering this is a case of constitutional norms, these conflicts are not pertinent (but the Court should nonetheless know).
 
Muggy21 said:
Your Honour,

The RCLU is a civil rights organization that strives in part to ensure the citizenry of Redmont have access to a free and spirited judiciary. We hold the government to account and ensure the public are afforded their rights. In this matter, may the RCLU file an amicus curiae brief to discuss the constitutional implications of the Complaint and other similar discussion points?

COI Disclaimer: I'm a Compliance Officer in DOC and I work under Multiman155 at MZLD. Considering this is a case of constitutional norms, these conflicts are not pertinent (but the Court should nonetheless know).
Click to expand...
I'll allow it.
 

Motion


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

Your Honor:

The Commonwealth seeks dismissal of this case under Rule 5.12 (Lack of Personal Jurisdiction). In support of this, the Commonwealth respectfully alleges:

Rule 5.12 (Lack of Personal Jurisdiction)​

Under Rule 2.1 (Standing Application),

In order for a plaintiff to pursue a case, they must show the following to the court:

  1. 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.
Click to expand...
The Commonwealth, reserving arguments for points 2 and 3 for a later time, argues that the first necessary condition for standing is not met. Under Rule 5.12, a case may be dismissed when a "plaintiff fails to have sufficient standing in order to pursue the case".

Simply put: the Plaintiff lacks standing here. No factual allegations have been made in this case that the Plaintiff (Malka) has been injured by a second party nor affected by any application of law. Malka is neither named in any of the facts, nor personally party to any case included in evidence, nor a member of the Judiciary. The Plaintiff does not include factual allegations of harm to the Plaintiff by a second party for a reason; it is simple: none exists.

Prior precedent on standing is clear here. As in Nacholebraa v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 83, "[t]he plaintiff of this case is unaffiliated with the defendant" in the cases referenced within the facts "and therefore has no specific harms which to sue on".

Just as in [2023] FCR 83, the Plaintiff's lawsuit ought be dismissed with prejudice for lack of standing.

Conclusion​

For the reasons above, the Commonwealth asks that this case be dismissed with prejudice. Should the Plaintiff seek voluntary dismissal hereafter, the Commonwealth asks that such dismissal be granted only with prejudice in light of the standing issues raised above.

 

Answer to Complaint


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

Malka
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT​

  1. Affirms that the Classified Materials Act allows for Congress to overturn denied FOIs against the judiciary
  2. Neither Affirms nor Denies that the Judiciary is not required to act in an unbiased manner.
  3. Neither Affirms nor Denies that FCR 81, at the date of August 13th, was an ongoing case
  4. Neither Affirms nor Denies that FCR 81, if not dismissed, could return to the Supreme Court upon appeal.
  5. Affirms that The constitution states that "Judicial power is vested in the courts."
  6. Neither Affirms nor Denies The Federal Court has "Appellate Jurisdiction" without qualification, noting that Const. 18(2) states that "The‌ ‌Federal ‌Court‌ ‌of‌ ‌Redmont‌ ‌has appellate jurisdiction over‌ the District Court".
  7. Denies that Section (13) of part 4 of the constitution reads: "Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status". Inasmuch as this refers to Part IV, Section 32, Subsection 13, Affirms.
  8. Denies that Section (15) of part 4 of the Constitution reads: "Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure." Inasmuch as this refers to Part IV, Section 32, Subsection 15, Affirms.
  9. Denies that before the appeal of the original classification act, the power of Judicial FOI appeals was vested within the Federal Court.
  10. Neither Affirms nor Denies that Judges within the federal court are to act with no prejudice.
  11. Neither Affirms nor Denies The act of remanding to a different court is not the delivery of a verdict.
  12. Neither Affirms nor Denies that SCR 11[2025] Is functionally the same case as FCR 81, noting that (1) this is not the correct format for how cases are numbered; (2) no case by the number SCR 11[2025] appears in the case archive; and (3) "functionally the same case" is too ambiguous to give a concrete affirmation.

II. DEFENCES​

1. The Plaintiff plainly lacks standing.​

The Plaintiff does not allege harm by a second party and does not provide any factual allegations supporting a claim that the Plaintiff herself was harmed by an application of law. As noted above in the Motion to Dismiss, this alone is enough to end the case.

2. The Commonwealth does not have Charter rights against search and seizure, while the Congress does have powers to set classification rules and conduct oversight; the first claim for relief is mistaken as a matter of law.​

Under Const. 32(13), "Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure" (emphasis mine). But the government, containing its three branches, itself is not a citizen. This is a fundamental and basic premise of our constitutional order evidenced by both the preamble of the Constitution itself (calling out separately "all citizens and the Government of the Commonwealth of Redmont") and Const. 32(8) (indicating that "players are to be granted Citizenship").

The Plaintiff's first claim relies explicitly and necessarily about there being a "Commonwealth's constitutional right Against Unreasonable Search or Seizure by Congress". But the constitution does not grant one; as the legislative history discussed below indicates, classification does not arise from Charter responsibilities and does not draw its authority from Charter rights. Instead, classification arises now from statue.

2.1 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-001). 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 without intruding on adjudication. That understanding persisted in the Legislative Standards Act, which continues to authorize subpoenas by simple majority, require that motions state a reason, and provide enforcement for non‑compliance.

2.2 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-002, 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-003). 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.

2.3 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-004). 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:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

2.4. 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.

2.5. Passage of the Classified Materials Act.​

In July 2025 Congress replaced the 2021 scheme with the Classified Materials Act (CMA) (see D‑005). The CMA standardised designations (SECRET, RESTRICTED, OFFICIAL, PUBLIC) and identified Primary Classification Officers (PCOs) for each branch. Crucially, judicial deliberations are JUD‑RESTRICTED by default for the duration of a case and automatically lapse upon verdict unless the Supreme Court extends them—protecting decisional independence without cloaking the judiciary indefinitely (CMA §6(6)). 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 and in line with the principles of Section 21(2) of the Judicial Standards Act (which allows the Speaker of the House to assess certain appeals) 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)).

2.6 Congressional Oversight and the Constitution.​

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".

It is this oversight power that it exercises in these reviews, and has always exercised 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 this constitutional authority. This court should not be confused: Congress

2.7 Conclusion: The Congress defines classification, and reviews under constitutional oversight power.​

Classification is a creature of statute that Congress has structured, revised, and finally codified in the CMA. The judiciary’s decisional independence is preserved (e.g., JUD‑RESTRICTED deliberations), while Congress retains its traditional information‑gathering and oversight tools (hearings, subpoenas, and the limited FOI‑appeal function in §8(7)(b)). Nothing in this framework authorizes Congress to alter judicial outcomes; it simply provides a separation‑of‑powers‑compliant mechanism to assess FOI reasonableness and, where appropriate, to order disclosure with safeguards.

3. The second claim for relief is a generalized grievance rather than a specific or cognizable claim for relief under the law.​

The second claim for relief does not cite a particular statue, constitutional clause, or judicial precedent as its authority.

Plaintiff’s complaint speaks in institutional terms—“collapse of trust,” “checks and balances,” and dissatisfaction with how Congress handles FOI appeals—not a personal, concrete harm. There is no allegation (for example) that Plaintiff filed a judicial FOI request or was otherwise affected by an application of law under the Classified Materials Act (CMA) §8(7)(b). Absent this, there is no cognizable injury tied to CMA §8(7)(b).

The second claim for relief pivots on broad attacks against legislative procedures and a historical case to which the Plaintiff was not a party (FCR 81), not on any Commonwealth action applied to Plaintiff. By contrast, where the law is applied to a party (e.g., issuance of an eviction or compliance report), courts have recognized standing because the report itself “applied” the law to that plaintiff. That is not the posture here.

Striking the CMA and enjoining a congressional FOI-appeal mechanism would not redress Plaintiff’s abstract concern about “trust” or institutional design. Rule 2.1 expressly requires that a remedy be applicable and capable of addressing the alleged injury; Plaintiff identifies no specific injury to herself that an order from this Court could fix.

4. The Plaintiff alleges that judges are permitted to act in a biased manner, which may undercut the second claim for relief.​

While the Commonwealth does not affirm nor deny that "the Judiciary is not required to act in an unbiased manner" (fact 2), the Planitiff alleges it. The judiciary acting with bias may undercut the reasoning behind the second claim for relief, which decries a "lack of unbiased decision" as a motivating grievance.

5. The alleged "appeal of the original classification act" is not established.​

The Plaintiff refers to "appeal of the original classification act" but does not provide evidence or reference to a case in which the classification act was appealed.

6. The claims lack of live controversy.​

Any dispute tied to [2025] FCR 81 is non-justiciable because that matter was dismissed; thus no “ongoing case” existed as of the filing of this complaint. Assertions about interference in an active case are hypothetical and cannot sustain relief.

7. Congress’s FOI review is oversight, not merits adjudication, and separation of powers must be respected.​

The Classified Materials ActMaterials Act assigns appeals of judicial FOI denials to a joint closed and classified congressional hearing (§8(7)(b)), bounded by classification rules (§6(6), §8(9)-(10)) and Congress’s subpoena authority in statute. Challenges to internal legislative procedures present political questions absent concrete, personal injury; such an injury to the Plaintiff is plainly lacking here.

III. Evidence​

Congressional Hearings Act
Classification Act December 2020
APGI Act
Classification Act
Classified Materials Act

IV. Witness List:​

  1. Malka - Plaintiff
  2. Krix - Posted the Congressional Hearings Act and Classification Act December 2020 to the Forums
  3. Westray - Vetoed the Classification Act December 2020
  4. Ansgard_Ist - Wrote the APGI Act
  5. Intercepticon - Proposed the APGI Act
  6. MilkCrack - Wrote the portion of the "Classification Amendment Act", which inserted Freedom of Information into the Classification Act
  7. Mhadsher101 - Authored the "Freedom of Confidentiality Act", which modified Freedom of Information within the Classification Act
  8. Gwiis - Co-authored the Classified Materials Act
  9. Omegabiebel - Co-authored the Classified Materials Act
  10. Aladeen - Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont
  11. RealImza - Congressional Clerk
  12. EATB - Proposed the Classified Materials Act

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 6 day of September 2025

 
Last edited:

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE

Your Honor:

While the Plaintiff claims that P-001 shows [2025] FCR 81, the link provided is to [2025] FCR 80. This caused considerable confusion while preparing the answer to complaint, and the Commonwealth requests that this be stricken as improper: should the Plaintiff wish to include it, the Plaintiff should at least include the correct link.

 

Motion


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

Your Honor:

The Commonwealth seeks amendment to its answer to perform the following:

 
Franciscus said:

Motion


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

Your Honor:

The Commonwealth seeks dismissal of this case under Rule 5.12 (Lack of Personal Jurisdiction). In support of this, the Commonwealth respectfully alleges:

Rule 5.12 (Lack of Personal Jurisdiction)​

Under Rule 2.1 (Standing Application),


The Commonwealth, reserving arguments for points 2 and 3 for a later time, argues that the first necessary condition for standing is not met. Under Rule 5.12, a case may be dismissed when a "plaintiff fails to have sufficient standing in order to pursue the case".

Simply put: the Plaintiff lacks standing here. No factual allegations have been made in this case that the Plaintiff (Malka) has been injured by a second party nor affected by any application of law. Malka is neither named in any of the facts, nor personally party to any case included in evidence, nor a member of the Judiciary. The Plaintiff does not include factual allegations of harm to the Plaintiff by a second party for a reason; it is simple: none exists.

Prior precedent on standing is clear here. As in Nacholebraa v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 83, "[t]he plaintiff of this case is unaffiliated with the defendant" in the cases referenced within the facts "and therefore has no specific harms which to sue on".

Just as in [2023] FCR 83, the Plaintiff's lawsuit ought be dismissed with prejudice for lack of standing.

Conclusion​

For the reasons above, the Commonwealth asks that this case be dismissed with prejudice. Should the Plaintiff seek voluntary dismissal hereafter, the Commonwealth asks that such dismissal be granted only with prejudice in light of the standing issues raised above.

Click to expand...
Permission to respond, your honor?
 
Franciscus said:

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE

Your Honor:

While the Plaintiff claims that P-001 shows [2025] FCR 81, the link provided is to [2025] FCR 80. This caused considerable confusion while preparing the answer to complaint, and the Commonwealth requests that this be stricken as improper: should the Plaintiff wish to include it, the Plaintiff should at least include the correct link.

Click to expand...

Response


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Your honor, I plead oopsie daisy.
If it would please the court;

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Amend
The plaintiff seeks to modify the following in the complaint;
Change the hyperlink from P-001 from FCR [80] to FCR [81]

This was a numbering error on my part, and the rest of the evidence reflects that as it lists FCR-81 [alternatively known as SCR-11] as the referenced material in evidence [see P-004]



No malice or ill intent was meant in my inconsequential mistake in copy-pasting the wrong hyperlink, and this is simply due to the confusion presented by having both 80 and 81 be Toadking filed cases remanded from the Supreme Court. Oops.

 
ameslap said:
You may.
Click to expand...
Requesting a 12 hour extension from the default 24 for response, currently babysitting my brother out of the house :)
 
The Commonwealth does not oppose the extension.
 
aubunny said:
Requesting a 12 hour extension from the default 24 for response, currently babysitting my brother out of the house :)
Click to expand...
That’s fine.
 
Franciscus said:

Motion


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

Your Honor:

The Commonwealth seeks dismissal of this case under Rule 5.12 (Lack of Personal Jurisdiction). In support of this, the Commonwealth respectfully alleges:

Rule 5.12 (Lack of Personal Jurisdiction)​

Under Rule 2.1 (Standing Application),


The Commonwealth, reserving arguments for points 2 and 3 for a later time, argues that the first necessary condition for standing is not met. Under Rule 5.12, a case may be dismissed when a "plaintiff fails to have sufficient standing in order to pursue the case".

Simply put: the Plaintiff lacks standing here. No factual allegations have been made in this case that the Plaintiff (Malka) has been injured by a second party nor affected by any application of law. Malka is neither named in any of the facts, nor personally party to any case included in evidence, nor a member of the Judiciary. The Plaintiff does not include factual allegations of harm to the Plaintiff by a second party for a reason; it is simple: none exists.

Prior precedent on standing is clear here. As in Nacholebraa v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 83, "[t]he plaintiff of this case is unaffiliated with the defendant" in the cases referenced within the facts "and therefore has no specific harms which to sue on".

Just as in [2023] FCR 83, the Plaintiff's lawsuit ought be dismissed with prejudice for lack of standing.

Conclusion​

For the reasons above, the Commonwealth asks that this case be dismissed with prejudice. Should the Plaintiff seek voluntary dismissal hereafter, the Commonwealth asks that such dismissal be granted only with prejudice in light of the standing issues raised above.

Click to expand...

Response



There are two main arguments about how the standing application does not apply here;

1) Application of law does, in fact, harm me or another relevant party directly.

Congressional Oversight over FOI requests provides a gaping hole in the ability to properly keep cases and discussions of verdicts protected, which directly influences the decision-making process of said verdicts.

While FCR-81 did not directly involve me, the listed evidence is used as an overarching example of how Congress has been abusing its ability to throw out classifications for cases that were, at the time, actively ongoing.

2) This is a public interest case
There is precedent for continuing cases on personal standing on the basis of the Judiciary not following the letter of the law or constitution, [see FCR-44 and FCR-31]. These are necessary checks from the public on the Government. Public interest cases have been around since the formation of these courts, and to strike them down now would be a gross miscarriage of justice.

As a reminder, the commonwealth is requesting a dismissal With Prejudice for lack of standing, which, while applied in precedent shown in their motion, is not proper court procedure. Rule 2.1 shows grounds for sua sponte dismissal, which is without prejudice.
The notion to strike with prejudice is a particular use of deceptive reasoning to prevent the citizens of Redmont from holding their government accountable through the court of law. And shows an underhanded tactic on the side of the Commonwealth.

We have not even entered discovery yet, and the true scope of standing can not be shown in just a case brief.

 
Franciscus said:

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE

Your Honor:

While the Plaintiff claims that P-001 shows [2025] FCR 81, the link provided is to [2025] FCR 80. This caused considerable confusion while preparing the answer to complaint, and the Commonwealth requests that this be stricken as improper: should the Plaintiff wish to include it, the Plaintiff should at least include the correct link.

Click to expand...
aubunny said:

Response


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Your honor, I plead oopsie daisy.
If it would please the court;

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Amend
The plaintiff seeks to modify the following in the complaint;
Change the hyperlink from P-001 from FCR [80] to FCR [81]

This was a numbering error on my part, and the rest of the evidence reflects that as it lists FCR-81 [alternatively known as SCR-11] as the referenced material in evidence [see P-004]



No malice or ill intent was meant in my inconsequential mistake in copy-pasting the wrong hyperlink, and this is simply due to the confusion presented by having both 80 and 81 be Toadking filed cases remanded from the Supreme Court. Oops.

Click to expand...
Granted. Once discovery begins please amend the evidence to the correct link.

Franciscus said:

Motion


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

Your Honor:

The Commonwealth seeks amendment to its answer to perform the following:

Click to expand...
Granted. Also note that you may amend all you want during discovery as long as you notify the court.

aubunny said:

Response



There are two main arguments about how the standing application does not apply here;

1) Application of law does, in fact, harm me or another relevant party directly.

Congressional Oversight over FOI requests provides a gaping hole in the ability to properly keep cases and discussions of verdicts protected, which directly influences the decision-making process of said verdicts.

While FCR-81 did not directly involve me, the listed evidence is used as an overarching example of how Congress has been abusing its ability to throw out classifications for cases that were, at the time, actively ongoing.

2) This is a public interest case
There is precedent for continuing cases on personal standing on the basis of the Judiciary not following the letter of the law or constitution, [see FCR-44 and FCR-31]. These are necessary checks from the public on the Government. Public interest cases have been around since the formation of these courts, and to strike them down now would be a gross miscarriage of justice.

As a reminder, the commonwealth is requesting a dismissal With Prejudice for lack of standing, which, while applied in precedent shown in their motion, is not proper court procedure. Rule 2.1 shows grounds for sua sponte dismissal, which is without prejudice.
The notion to strike with prejudice is a particular use of deceptive reasoning to prevent the citizens of Redmont from holding their government accountable through the court of law. And shows an underhanded tactic on the side of the Commonwealth.

We have not even entered discovery yet, and the true scope of standing can not be shown in just a case brief.

Click to expand...
Motion denied. As Judge Nacho put it in [2024] - FCR 33:
Members of the public can challenge the constitutionality of laws within the Federal Court. While they may not have specific damages related to the application of the law, they can challenge whether a law follows the parameters for being a law.

In practice, it is considered a Check the public has on the government to ensure only legally acceptable laws are passed.
Click to expand...


Now then, Discovery is now open and shall last for 5 days. Parties may end discovery early if you wish.

At the end of discovery, please let the court know if you would like an in-game trial or not. Thank you.
 
ameslap said:
Motion denied. As Judge Nacho put it in [2024] - FCR 33:
Click to expand...

Motion


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

Your Honor:

The Commonwealth asks that the Federal Court defer to Supreme Court precedent on the issue as shown in zLost v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] SCR 14. In the Supreme Court's dismissal of that case, the Court found two independent reasons warranting dismissal, the first of which was that "[t]he Plainitff has shown no personal injury or legal effect as required under Rule 2.1".

Judge Nacho's ruling, which is relied upon in the denial, was (1) never subject to appellate review and (2) was contradicted by recent precedent in the Supreme Court of Redmont, which is binding upon the Federal Court. Mere allegations of unconstitutionality are plainly insufficient for standing when no personal injury is plausibly alleged and when no specific damages related to the application of the law occur.

This Court cannot rely upon Federal Court precedent that is in open contradiction of the Supreme Court. The Commonwealth thusly asks for reconsideration.

 

Brief


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBMISSION OF INTERROGATORY

Your Honor,

In line with Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), the Commonwealth submits the following interrogatory, which the Plaintiff must answer truthfully and to the best of her ability within 48 hours:

aubunny said:
1) Application of law does, in fact, harm me or another relevant party directly.
Click to expand...
  1. In the view of the Plaintiff, would the Plaintiff please provide the names of any and all "relevant parties" that are directly harmed by the application of the law as it pertains to this case?

 

Motion


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

Your Honor,

The Commonwealth seeks to compel the following information from the Plaintiff:

  • Any and all electronic or written communications written by or received by the Plaintiff discussing this case or any factual allegation therein, to the greatest extent possible permitted under staff rules.

 
Franciscus said:

Motion


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

Your Honor:

The Commonwealth asks that the Federal Court defer to Supreme Court precedent on the issue as shown in zLost v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] SCR 14. In the Supreme Court's dismissal of that case, the Court found two independent reasons warranting dismissal, the first of which was that "[t]he Plainitff has shown no personal injury or legal effect as required under Rule 2.1".

Judge Nacho's ruling, which is relied upon in the denial, was (1) never subject to appellate review and (2) was contradicted by recent precedent in the Supreme Court of Redmont, which is binding upon the Federal Court. Mere allegations of unconstitutionality are plainly insufficient for standing when no personal injury is plausibly alleged and when no specific damages related to the application of the law occur.

This Court cannot rely upon Federal Court precedent that is in open contradiction of the Supreme Court. The Commonwealth thusly asks for reconsideration.

Click to expand...
I will hold off for the time being as you have an interrogatory out to the Plaintiff on this very question. Additionally, I am reviewing everything.

Franciscus said:

Motion


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

Your Honor,

The Commonwealth seeks to compel the following information from the Plaintiff:

  • Any and all electronic or written communications written by or received by the Plaintiff discussing this case or any factual allegation therein, to the greatest extent possible permitted under staff rules.

Click to expand...
Granted. The Plaintiff is asked to turn over all communications by the end of discovery.
 
Your Honor,

The Commonwealth is filing the following motions in order to obtain information on the legislative history, as well as documentation that may relate to original public meaning of laws in light of constitutional clauses at issue here. As such:

Motion


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

The Commonwealth seeks a subpoena from this court to order witness Krix to provide the following information to this Court:

  • Any written or electronic communication, notes, draft documents, or other written or electronic items in their possession that pertain to the drafting or passage of the Congressional Hearings Act.
  • Any written or electronic communication, notes, draft documents, or other written or electronic items in their possession that pertain to the drafting or veto of the Classification Act December 2020.


Motion


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

The Commonwealth seeks a subpoena from this court to order witness Westray to provide the following information to this Court:

  • Any written or electronic communication, notes, draft documents, or other written or electronic items in their possession that pertain to the drafting or veto of the Classification Act December 2020.


Motion


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

The Commonwealth seeks a subpoena from this court to order witness Ansgard_Ist to provide the following information to this Court:

  • Any written or electronic communication, notes, draft documents, or other written or electronic items in their possession that pertain to the drafting or passage of the APGI.


Motion


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

The Commonwealth seeks a subpoena from this court to order witness Intercepticon to provide the following information to this Court:

  • Any written or electronic communication, notes, draft documents, or other written or electronic items in their possession that pertain to the drafting or passage of the APGI.


Motion


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

The Commonwealth seeks a subpoena from this court to order witness Milkcrack to provide the following information to this Court:

  • Any written or electronic communication, notes, draft documents, or other written or electronic items in their possession that pertain to the drafting or passage of the Classification Amendment Act.


Motion


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

The Commonwealth seeks a subpoena from this court to order witness Mhadsher101 to provide the following information to this Court:

  • Any written or electronic communication, notes, draft documents, or other written or electronic items in their possession that pertain to the drafting or passage of the Freedom of Confidentiality Act.


Motion


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

The Commonwealth seeks a subpoena from this court to order witness Gwiis to provide the following information to this Court:


Motion


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

The Commonwealth seeks a subpoena from this court to order witness Omegabiebel to provide the following information to this Court:


Motion


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

The Commonwealth seeks a subpoena from this court to order witness xEndeavour to provide the following information to this Court:

  • Any written or electronic communication, notes, draft documents, or other written or electronic items in their possession that pertain to the drafting or passage of the Classification Act.


Motion


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

The Commonwealth seeks a subpoena from this court to order witness Smallfries to provide the following information to this Court:

  • Any written or electronic communication, notes, draft documents, or other written or electronic items in their possession that pertain to the drafting or passage of the Classified Materials Act and/or Classified Materials Act that were created, modified, or otherwise circulated during his tenure as Executive Advisor.


Motion


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

The Commonwealth seeks a subpoena from this court to order former President Kaiserin_ to provide the following information to this Court:

  • Any written or electronic communication, notes, draft documents, or other written or electronic items in their possession that pertain to the drafting or passage of the Classified Materials Act and/or Classified Materials Act that were created, modified, or otherwise circulated during her tenure as President.

 
Your Honor:

The Commonwealth submits the following into evidence by link:

Classified Materials Act
 

Brief


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBMISSION OF INTERROGATORY

In line with Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), the Commonwealth submits the following interrogatory, which the Plaintiff must answer truthfully and to the best of her ability within 48 hours:

2. When you co-sponsored the Classified Materials Act (see: Exhibit D-006), did you believe that the text of §8(7)(b) therein was unconstitutional?

 
Franciscus said:
Your Honor,

The Commonwealth is filing the following motions in order to obtain information on the legislative history, as well as documentation that may relate to original public meaning of laws in light of constitutional clauses at issue here. As such:

Motion


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

The Commonwealth seeks a subpoena from this court to order witness Krix to provide the following information to this Court:

  • Any written or electronic communication, notes, draft documents, or other written or electronic items in their possession that pertain to the drafting or passage of the Congressional Hearings Act.
  • Any written or electronic communication, notes, draft documents, or other written or electronic items in their possession that pertain to the drafting or veto of the Classification Act December 2020.


Motion


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

The Commonwealth seeks a subpoena from this court to order witness Westray to provide the following information to this Court:

  • Any written or electronic communication, notes, draft documents, or other written or electronic items in their possession that pertain to the drafting or veto of the Classification Act December 2020.


Motion


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

The Commonwealth seeks a subpoena from this court to order witness Ansgard_Ist to provide the following information to this Court:

  • Any written or electronic communication, notes, draft documents, or other written or electronic items in their possession that pertain to the drafting or passage of the APGI.


Motion


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

The Commonwealth seeks a subpoena from this court to order witness Intercepticon to provide the following information to this Court:

  • Any written or electronic communication, notes, draft documents, or other written or electronic items in their possession that pertain to the drafting or passage of the APGI.


Motion


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

The Commonwealth seeks a subpoena from this court to order witness Milkcrack to provide the following information to this Court:

  • Any written or electronic communication, notes, draft documents, or other written or electronic items in their possession that pertain to the drafting or passage of the Classification Amendment Act.


Motion


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

The Commonwealth seeks a subpoena from this court to order witness Mhadsher101 to provide the following information to this Court:

  • Any written or electronic communication, notes, draft documents, or other written or electronic items in their possession that pertain to the drafting or passage of the Freedom of Confidentiality Act.


Motion


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

The Commonwealth seeks a subpoena from this court to order witness Gwiis to provide the following information to this Court:


Motion


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

The Commonwealth seeks a subpoena from this court to order witness Omegabiebel to provide the following information to this Court:


Motion


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

The Commonwealth seeks a subpoena from this court to order witness xEndeavour to provide the following information to this Court:

  • Any written or electronic communication, notes, draft documents, or other written or electronic items in their possession that pertain to the drafting or passage of the Classification Act.


Motion


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

The Commonwealth seeks a subpoena from this court to order witness Smallfries to provide the following information to this Court:

  • Any written or electronic communication, notes, draft documents, or other written or electronic items in their possession that pertain to the drafting or passage of the Classified Materials Act and/or Classified Materials Act that were created, modified, or otherwise circulated during his tenure as Executive Advisor.


Motion


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

The Commonwealth seeks a subpoena from this court to order former President Kaiserin_ to provide the following information to this Court:

  • Any written or electronic communication, notes, draft documents, or other written or electronic items in their possession that pertain to the drafting or passage of the Classified Materials Act and/or Classified Materials Act that were created, modified, or otherwise circulated during her tenure as President.

Click to expand...
Please explain the purpose to the court. This is broad-reaching and dates back years and I am inclined to deny anything that is rescinded or no longer relevant to the current Classified Materials Act.
 
Your Honor,

Part of the substantial defense, should this not be dismissed for lack of standing, is going to involve an intensive analysis of legislative and constitutional history as it pertains to classified information and the congress's role therein. The Commonwealth wants to trace this over time and would request this information as evidence in further arguments regarding legislative history. Because the legislative history has a number of laws in it, the Commonwealth is seeking information as it pertains to those laws at the time of passage; it will help to establish original public meaning of laws.

In short, we want to be able to establish the history of classification and congress's role as overseer, as it would inform this case.
ameslap said:
Please explain the purpose to the court. This is broad-reaching and dates back years and I am inclined to deny anything that is rescinded or no longer relevant to the current Classified Materials Act.
Click to expand...
 
ameslap said:
I will hold off for the time being as you have an interrogatory out to the Plaintiff on this very question. Additionally, I am reviewing everything.


Granted. The Plaintiff is asked to turn over all communications by the end of discovery.
Click to expand...
1757357506763.png
1757357511443.png
1757357515399.png


This is what is provided publicly, within any server I am in that is affiliated with DC.

I ended up not following through with co-counciling with Dino, who is now acting AG.
As I am a solo practitioner in this case, a lot of my stuff is not shared in any available format.
 
Franciscus said:

Brief


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBMISSION OF INTERROGATORY

In line with Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), the Commonwealth submits the following interrogatory, which the Plaintiff must answer truthfully and to the best of her ability within 48 hours:

2. When you co-sponsored the Classified Materials Act (see: Exhibit D-006), did you believe that the text of §8(7)(b) therein was unconstitutional?

Click to expand...

I was never made aware of this actually! I don't have the screenshots as they were in the WPR legislative channel [which I am no longer affiliated with], but I was the most likely listed as cosponsor due to the fact that I was the person to originally come up with the idea of updating the classified materials act as a whole.

I was not asked if I wanted to cosponsor the finished version of the bill, I infact was not able to vote on the finished version of the bill, as it was not properly proposed until after my tenure, to my knowledge.

I did not willingly cosponsor the Classified Materials Act, while I was the person to originally draft some changes to how declassification worked in the attempt to prevent people from needing to renew classifications unnecessarily, in my time since departure of drafting said changes was the bill changed to the bastardization you now have infront of us.
 
Your Honor:

The Commonwealth hereby adds the following individual to the witness list and amends the complaint to the same:
  • EATB
 
aubunny said:
I was never made aware of this actually! I don't have the screenshots as they were in the WPR legislative channel [which I am no longer affiliated with], but I was the most likely listed as cosponsor due to the fact that I was the person to originally come up with the idea of updating the classified materials act as a whole.

I was not asked if I wanted to cosponsor the finished version of the bill, I infact was not able to vote on the finished version of the bill, as it was not properly proposed until after my tenure, to my knowledge.

I did not willingly cosponsor the Classified Materials Act, while I was the person to originally draft some changes to how declassification worked in the attempt to prevent people from needing to renew classifications unnecessarily, in my time since departure of drafting said changes was the bill changed to the bastardization you now have infront of us.
Click to expand...


Motion


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

Your Honor,

In line with Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement) The Commonwealth seeks to compel from the Plaintiff the following:

  • Any and all written or electronic communications in any DC-related Group Chat or Server between the Plaintiff and EATB regarding the Classified Materials Act or any predecessor document or proposal thereof.

 
aubunny said:
I was never made aware of this actually! I don't have the screenshots as they were in the WPR legislative channel [which I am no longer affiliated with], but I was the most likely listed as cosponsor due to the fact that I was the person to originally come up with the idea of updating the classified materials act as a whole.

I was not asked if I wanted to cosponsor the finished version of the bill, I infact was not able to vote on the finished version of the bill, as it was not properly proposed until after my tenure, to my knowledge.

I did not willingly cosponsor the Classified Materials Act, while I was the person to originally draft some changes to how declassification worked in the attempt to prevent people from needing to renew classifications unnecessarily, in my time since departure of drafting said changes was the bill changed to the bastardization you now have infront of us.
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NON-RESPONSIVE

Your Honor,

While Malka gave an answer denying that she wanted to co-sponsor the legislation on which she was listed as co-sponsor, Malka did not answer the substantial part of the question: whether or not Malka believed that the text of §8(7)(b) therein was unconstitutional at the time that she was listed as a co-sponsor on the bill.

The Commonwealth asks that the Court compel Malka to answer this question directly.

 
aubunny said:
I was never made aware of this actually! I don't have the screenshots as they were in the WPR legislative channel [which I am no longer affiliated with], but I was the most likely listed as cosponsor due to the fact that I was the person to originally come up with the idea of updating the classified materials act as a whole.

I was not asked if I wanted to cosponsor the finished version of the bill, I infact was not able to vote on the finished version of the bill, as it was not properly proposed until after my tenure, to my knowledge.

I did not willingly cosponsor the Classified Materials Act, while I was the person to originally draft some changes to how declassification worked in the attempt to prevent people from needing to renew classifications unnecessarily, in my time since departure of drafting said changes was the bill changed to the bastardization you now have infront of us.
Click to expand...

Motion


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

Your Honor:

The response relies upon the Plaintiff's lack of access to a particular channel within the discord of the WPR, a political party. In order to investigate the truth of this response, the Commonwealth would like to examine these messages and provide to the Court these screenshots which the Plaintiff no longer has access to. As the Plaintiff has testified to the existence of these screenshots, and they are relevant to the case, the Commonwealth seeks a subpoena to compel the following from the Workers' Party of Redmont:

  • Any and all messages sent by or in response to Malka in any channels within the discord of the WPR regarding the Classified Materials Act, its predecessor ideas or drafts, or in any other way materially relevant to this case.

 
Franciscus said:

Motion​


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

The Commonwealth seeks a subpoena from this court to order witness Krix to provide the following information to this Court:
  • Any written or electronic communication, notes, draft documents, or other written or electronic items in their possession that pertain to the drafting or passage of the Congressional Hearings Act.
  • Any written or electronic communication, notes, draft documents, or other written or electronic items in their possession that pertain to the drafting or veto of the Classification Act December 2020.
.link { color: #000000; font-weight: bold;}

Motion​


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

The Commonwealth seeks a subpoena from this court to order witness Westray to provide the following information to this Court:
  • Any written or electronic communication, notes, draft documents, or other written or electronic items in their possession that pertain to the drafting or veto of the Classification Act December 2020.
.link { color: #000000; font-weight: bold;}

Motion​


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

The Commonwealth seeks a subpoena from this court to order witness Ansgard_Ist to provide the following information to this Court:
  • Any written or electronic communication, notes, draft documents, or other written or electronic items in their possession that pertain to the drafting or passage of the APGI.
Click to expand...
Franciscus said:

Motion​


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

The Commonwealth seeks a subpoena from this court to order witness Mhadsher101 to provide the following information to this Court:
  • Any written or electronic communication, notes, draft documents, or other written or electronic items in their possession that pertain to the drafting or passage of the Freedom of Confidentiality Act.
Click to expand...
I shall deny these motions. I do not want to get this court sidetracked with every classification law and get away from the core question: Judicial FOI Requests. You can reach out to these individuals for information but I will not be compelling them to provide them.

Franciscus said:

Motion​


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

The Commonwealth seeks a subpoena from this court to order witness Milkcrack to provide the following information to this Court:
  • Any written or electronic communication, notes, draft documents, or other written or electronic items in their possession that pertain to the drafting or passage of the Classification Amendment Act.
Click to expand...
Franciscus said:

Motion​


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

The Commonwealth seeks a subpoena from this court to order witness Gwiis to provide the following information to this Court:
.link { color: #000000; font-weight: bold;}

Motion​


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

The Commonwealth seeks a subpoena from this court to order witness Omegabiebel to provide the following information to this Court:
.link { color: #000000; font-weight: bold;}

Motion​


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

The Commonwealth seeks a subpoena from this court to order witness xEndeavour to provide the following information to this Court:
  • Any written or electronic communication, notes, draft documents, or other written or electronic items in their possession that pertain to the drafting or passage of the Classification Act.
.link { color: #000000; font-weight: bold;}

Motion​


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

The Commonwealth seeks a subpoena from this court to order witness Smallfries to provide the following information to this Court:
  • Any written or electronic communication, notes, draft documents, or other written or electronic items in their possession that pertain to the drafting or passage of the Classified Materials Act and/or Classified Materials Act that were created, modified, or otherwise circulated during his tenure as Executive Advisor.
.link { color: #000000; font-weight: bold;}

Motion​


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

The Commonwealth seeks a subpoena from this court to order former President Kaiserin_ to provide the following information to this Court:
  • Any written or electronic communication, notes, draft documents, or other written or electronic items in their possession that pertain to the drafting or passage of the Classified Materials Act and/or Classified Materials Act that were created, modified, or otherwise circulated during her tenure as President.
Click to expand...
I will grant these motions as they are relevant to this case directly. The witnesses are asked to submit all of their information per the terms of these subpoena's within 72 hours of my ruling on the motion to dismiss should it be denied.
 
Franciscus said:

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NON-RESPONSIVE

Your Honor,

While Malka gave an answer denying that she wanted to co-sponsor the legislation on which she was listed as co-sponsor, Malka did not answer the substantial part of the question: whether or not Malka believed that the text of §8(7)(b) therein was unconstitutional at the time that she was listed as a co-sponsor on the bill.

The Commonwealth asks that the Court compel Malka to answer this question directly.

Click to expand...
Denied on the basis that the Objection Guide only defines Non-responsive remarks to witnesses and not to interrogatories.

That being said, the Plaintiff is compelled to answer the second part of the question truthfully and to the best of their ability.
 
Franciscus said:

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NON-RESPONSIVE

Your Honor,

While Malka gave an answer denying that she wanted to co-sponsor the legislation on which she was listed as co-sponsor, Malka did not answer the substantial part of the question: whether or not Malka believed that the text of §8(7)(b) therein was unconstitutional at the time that she was listed as a co-sponsor on the bill.

The Commonwealth asks that the Court compel Malka to answer this question directly.

Click to expand...
I did not read the bill at the time of it being originally put up, and would not have an opinion on it.
If I were to have read it, I would have found it to be unconstitutional.
 
Franciscus said:
Your Honor:

The Commonwealth hereby adds the following individual to the witness list and amends the complaint to the same:
  • EATB
Click to expand...
Go ahead and amend the complaint if you haven't already.

Franciscus said:

Motion


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

Your Honor:

The response relies upon the Plaintiff's lack of access to a particular channel within the discord of the WPR, a political party. In order to investigate the truth of this response, the Commonwealth would like to examine these messages and provide to the Court these screenshots which the Plaintiff no longer has access to. As the Plaintiff has testified to the existence of these screenshots, and they are relevant to the case, the Commonwealth seeks a subpoena to compel the following from the Workers' Party of Redmont:

  • Any and all messages sent by or in response to Malka in any channels within the discord of the WPR regarding the Classified Materials Act, its predecessor ideas or drafts, or in any other way materially relevant to this case.

Click to expand...
Granted. The WPR is compelled to submit the messages as described by the subpoena within the next 72 hours.
 
Franciscus said:

Motion


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

Your Honor,

In line with Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement) The Commonwealth seeks to compel from the Plaintiff the following:

  • Any and all written or electronic communications in any DC-related Group Chat or Server between the Plaintiff and EATB regarding the Classified Materials Act or any predecessor document or proposal thereof.

Click to expand...
To my knowledge, none exists that I can access until the WPR chats are recovered

Even then, the chats there were publicly available by anyone with the opt-in legislative role, and I don't think I made any comment to EATB about the bill in particular [this was multiple months ago at this time, however, so I may be wrong, to little relevance]
 
aubunny said:
To my knowledge, none exists that I can access until the WPR chats are recovered

Even then, the chats there were publicly available by anyone with the opt-in legislative role, and I don't think I made any comment to EATB about the bill in particular [this was multiple months ago at this time, however, so I may be wrong, to little relevance]
Click to expand...
Franciscus said:

Motion


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

Your Honor,

In line with Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement) The Commonwealth seeks to compel from the Plaintiff the following:

  • Any and all written or electronic communications in any DC-related Group Chat or Server between the Plaintiff and EATB regarding the Classified Materials Act or any predecessor document or proposal thereof.

Click to expand...
This is on hold until we get the WPR chats.
 

Motion


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

The Plaintiff wishes to compel the following from the Commonwealth

1) Any discussion within Congress chat relating to the Passing of the current CMA

2) Any motions regarding Judicial FOI Appeals

3) Discussions surrounding the motions regarding Judicial FOI Appeals.

 

Motion



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

​
The Plaintiff will be amending their case filing for the following:
​

9. Before the repeal of the original classification act, the power of Judicial FOI appeals was vested within the Federal Court.

7. Part IV, Section 32, Subsection 13 of the constitution reads: "Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status."​

8. Part IV, Section 32, Subsection 15, of the Constitution reads: "Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure."​

sections changed are in bold.

 
Franciscus said:
Your Honor,

Pursuant to Rule 4.6 (Submission of Discovery, Voluntarily), The Commonwealth submits the following into evidence:

View attachment 61407
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RELEVANCE

I fail to see the relevance to this. I have already stated that I was not involved in the original formation of the bill, and that they listed me as a cosponsor without my written consent. Either I am committing Perjury, or the more likely answer for this screenshot would be the response;

"Took too long... I'm out of the game" was a general comment about me not being in Congress anymore, regardless of the nature of the bill.
As someone who said those words, I can ascertain the nature and intent of their meaning.

 
Franciscus said:

Motion


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

Your Honor:

The Commonwealth asks that the Federal Court defer to Supreme Court precedent on the issue as shown in zLost v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] SCR 14. In the Supreme Court's dismissal of that case, the Court found two independent reasons warranting dismissal, the first of which was that "[t]he Plainitff has shown no personal injury or legal effect as required under Rule 2.1".

Judge Nacho's ruling, which is relied upon in the denial, was (1) never subject to appellate review and (2) was contradicted by recent precedent in the Supreme Court of Redmont, which is binding upon the Federal Court. Mere allegations of unconstitutionality are plainly insufficient for standing when no personal injury is plausibly alleged and when no specific damages related to the application of the law occur.

This Court cannot rely upon Federal Court precedent that is in open contradiction of the Supreme Court. The Commonwealth thusly asks for reconsideration.

Click to expand...
Motion to Reconsider Denied.

The SCR ruling does not leave a binding precedent on this case. The case cited, [2025] SCR 14, explores a potential mishandling of the Executive Standards Act and does not involve any constitutional arguments as this one does. The public shall retain the right to challenge the constitutionality of laws.
 
aubunny said:

Motion


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

The Plaintiff wishes to compel the following from the Commonwealth

1) Any discussion within Congress chat relating to the Passing of the current CMA

2) Any motions regarding Judicial FOI Appeals

3) Discussions surrounding the motions regarding Judicial FOI Appeals.

Click to expand...
Granted. The Commonwealth has 72 hours to produce the information requested.

aubunny said:

Motion



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

​
The Plaintiff will be amending their case filing for the following:
​
​
9. Before the repeal of the original classification act, the power of Judicial FOI appeals was vested within the Federal Court.​
​
7. Part IV, Section 32, Subsection 13 of the constitution reads: "Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status."​

8. Part IV, Section 32, Subsection 15, of the Constitution reads: "Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure."​

sections changed are in bold.

Click to expand...
Go ahead.
 
If I have missed anything, please let me know. With all the new motions it is easy to accidentally skip one.
 
aubunny said:

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RELEVANCE

I fail to see the relevance to this. I have already stated that I was not involved in the original formation of the bill, and that they listed me as a cosponsor without my written consent. Either I am committing Perjury, or the more likely answer for this screenshot would be the response;

"Took too long... I'm out of the game" was a general comment about me not being in Congress anymore, regardless of the nature of the bill.
As someone who said those words, I can ascertain the nature and intent of their meaning.

Click to expand...

Response


Your Honor,

The Commonwealth does not rule out that the Plaintiff may be committing perjury, and asks that this be retained as evidence as to the credibility of the witness-Plaintiff. The Commonwealth believes that the screenshot is relevant to the question of the Plaintiff's prior sponsorship of the Classified Materials Act as shown in Exhibit D-006.

Indeed, the very fact that Malka stated this provides evidence that Malka (1) did open and read (at least a portion of) the bill before passage; (2) that Malka did not object to the substantial content when noting her presence in the bill; and (3) that Malka may have well been aware that she had been a co-sponsor for the bill shown in D-006 inasmuch as it merely "took too long" for the bill to be brought to fruition.

What's more, the bills shown in D-005 and D-006 do not contain, in the opinion of the Commonwealth, differences that are material in this case as it pertains to the mechanism of oversight exercised by the Congress §8(7)(b). As such, Malka's public statement is relevant to the case.

 
Franciscus said:

Brief


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBMISSION OF INTERROGATORY

Your Honor,

In line with Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), the Commonwealth submits the following interrogatory, which the Plaintiff must answer truthfully and to the best of her ability within 48 hours:


  1. In the view of the Plaintiff, would the Plaintiff please provide the names of any and all "relevant parties" that are directly harmed by the application of the law as it pertains to this case?

Click to expand...

As it pertains to this case, the general public is a relevant party to the application of the law as it pertains to this case.
Colloquially, this is what is known as a public interest case.
Through congressional override of the balance of power, the ability for Congress to bully the courts into acting a certain way, through a complete lack of transparency, and the inability to deliver non-biased verdicts.

As per the constitution:
21. Judicial Officers ‌
They are responsible for presiding over and delivering unbiased verdicts in all lawsuits.

The nature of this case is based on the public interest of preventing Congress from bullying the rest of the commonwealth's citizens in the court of law through undue peer pressure into the courts, preventing them from reaching unbiased conclusions, or otherwise allowing congressional members to obtain information they would realistically not have under proper oversight of judicial proceedings. This can be seen clearly through Congress allowing, [at the time], Sitting Representative ToadKing, who was the plaintiff in FCR-81, access to information pertinent to the proceedings of FCR-81 while the court was still in session.
 
ameslap said:
If I have missed anything, please let me know. With all the new motions it is easy to accidentally skip one.
Click to expand...
Your Honor:

I'm not quite sure if this is what you mean by "missed anything", but the witnesses/subpoenaed parties have not yet been summoned to the case, so some may be unaware of the motions to compel or the other proceedings here. For this reason, the Commonwealth asks that the individuals be issued a formal subpoena so that they may be no confusion as to their obligations.
 
ameslap said:
Granted. The Commonwealth has 72 hours to produce the information requested.
Click to expand...
Your Honor,

For items 2 and 3, the Commonwealth is a bit confused as to the scope. We ask for reconsideration so as to provide additional clarity:

  • For item 2, the Commonwealth understands this to be the congressional motions that relate to the FOI appeal mentioned in the Complaint's factual allegations. Are we correct in this understanding?
  • For item 3, the Commonwealth understands this to be conversations in the Congress chat that relates to the motions in (2). Are we correct on this?
 

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR IN-GAME TRIAL

Your Honor,

Pursuant to Rule 7.1 (In-Game Trial Requests), the Commonwealth requests an in-game trial.

Should discovery proceed without extension, the Commonwealth requests that this trial take place at 5:00 P.M. Pacific Time (U.S., Los Angeles) on Thursday, September 25. In the event of an extension, the Commonwealth understands that the trial may need to be delayed to a later date.

 
Your honor,

Apologies for speaking out of turn; however, I wish to inform the court that I must recuse myself from this case in my capacity as Attorney General.

The conversations between the Plaintiff and myself happened prior to my role in the DoJ and didn't extend past their filing - even so I felt it prudent to inform of this conflict.

I also wish to make clear that I have had no hand in the progression of this particular case on either side and do not intend to do so as to avoid any appearance of bias or COI.

Thank you.
 
Franciscus said:

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR IN-GAME TRIAL

Your Honor,

Pursuant to Rule 7.1 (In-Game Trial Requests), the Commonwealth requests an in-game trial.

Should discovery proceed without extension, the Commonwealth requests that this trial take place at 5:00 P.M. Pacific Time (U.S., Los Angeles) on Thursday, September 25. In the event of an extension, the Commonwealth understands that the trial may need to be delayed to a later date.

Click to expand...
The Plaintiff denies this request, sorry multi
 
ameslap said:
Granted. The Commonwealth has 72 hours to produce the information requested.
.
Click to expand...

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION REQUESTING EXTENSION OF DISCOVERY

Your Honor,

The Commonwealth’s counsel has opened a ticket with the Office of Congressional Affairs to take steps towards complying with this discovery request. Towards this end, this counsel will need cooperation from both the President of the Senate (or designee) and the Speaker of the House (or designee) to obtain and return any relevant documents from their respective chambers.

As there is an election swiftly approaching, the terms of these two officers will expire before the deadline set by the court, and a new election for President of the Senate and Speaker of the House will be held subsequently. In order to provide time for these officers to be elected from amongst their peers, the Commonwealth ask that the Commonwealth be permitted until 72 hours after the election of the next Speaker of the House and President of the Senate to submit documents with respect to each chamber. We also ask that discovery be extended pursuant to Rule 4.4 (Request for Extension of Discovery) in like kind, so that this extension may be accommodated.

 

Motion


MOTION TO COMPEL

The plaintiff wishes to compel the following from the commonwealth;

Discussion in congressional chats about any of the following;

Intending to submit judicial FOIs

Intending to see judicial verdicts

Discussion around Judicial Classifications.

The plaintiff sees these to be different enough from the previous compel to justify making a seperate motion.



Also; the plaintiff does not disagree with the request for extension.
 
Franciscus said:
Your Honor,

For items 2 and 3, the Commonwealth is a bit confused as to the scope. We ask for reconsideration so as to provide additional clarity:

  • For item 2, the Commonwealth understands this to be the congressional motions that relate to the FOI appeal mentioned in the Complaint's factual allegations. Are we correct in this understanding?
  • For item 3, the Commonwealth understands this to be conversations in the Congress chat that relates to the motions in (2). Are we correct on this?
Click to expand...
@aubunny, please clarify what you wish to have.

Franciscus said:

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION REQUESTING EXTENSION OF DISCOVERY

Your Honor,

The Commonwealth’s counsel has opened a ticket with the Office of Congressional Affairs to take steps towards complying with this discovery request. Towards this end, this counsel will need cooperation from both the President of the Senate (or designee) and the Speaker of the House (or designee) to obtain and return any relevant documents from their respective chambers.

As there is an election swiftly approaching, the terms of these two officers will expire before the deadline set by the court, and a new election for President of the Senate and Speaker of the House will be held subsequently. In order to provide time for these officers to be elected from amongst their peers, the Commonwealth ask that the Commonwealth be permitted until 72 hours after the election of the next Speaker of the House and President of the Senate to submit documents with respect to each chamber. We also ask that discovery be extended pursuant to Rule 4.4 (Request for Extension of Discovery) in like kind, so that this extension may be accommodated.

Click to expand...
We will extend the discovery until 12:01 AM on September 16 (Mountain Standard Time, my court my timezone). That should give us enough time to finish all discovery.

Will do the subpoenas in a moment.

aubunny said:
The Plaintiff denies this request, sorry multi
Click to expand...
Sad day.

aubunny said:

Motion


MOTION TO COMPEL

The plaintiff wishes to compel the following from the commonwealth;

Discussion in congressional chats about any of the following;

Intending to submit judicial FOIs

Intending to see judicial verdicts

Discussion around Judicial Classifications.

The plaintiff sees these to be different enough from the previous compel to justify making a seperate motion.



Also; the plaintiff does not disagree with the request for extension.
Click to expand...
Granted on the following:
Channels within the Congressional Discord Server only, and within the past 3 months.
 
Franciscus said:

Motion​


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

The Commonwealth seeks a subpoena from this court to order witness Smallfries to provide the following information to this Court:
  • Any written or electronic communication, notes, draft documents, or other written or electronic items in their possession that pertain to the drafting or passage of the Classified Materials Act and/or Classified Materials Act that were created, modified, or otherwise circulated during his tenure as Executive Advisor.
Click to expand...
Present.

I have none.
 
The WPR is present, your honor
 
Present, your honour!

Franciscus said:
Your Honor,

The Commonwealth is filing the following motions in order to obtain information on the legislative history, as well as documentation that may relate to original public meaning of laws in light of constitutional clauses at issue here. As such:

Motion


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

The Commonwealth seeks a subpoena from this court to order witness Krix to provide the following information to this Court:

  • Any written or electronic communication, notes, draft documents, or other written or electronic items in their possession that pertain to the drafting or passage of the Congressional Hearings Act.
  • Any written or electronic communication, notes, draft documents, or other written or electronic items in their possession that pertain to the drafting or veto of the Classification Act December 2020.


Motion


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

The Commonwealth seeks a subpoena from this court to order witness Westray to provide the following information to this Court:

  • Any written or electronic communication, notes, draft documents, or other written or electronic items in their possession that pertain to the drafting or veto of the Classification Act December 2020.


Motion


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

The Commonwealth seeks a subpoena from this court to order witness Ansgard_Ist to provide the following information to this Court:

  • Any written or electronic communication, notes, draft documents, or other written or electronic items in their possession that pertain to the drafting or passage of the APGI.


Motion


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

The Commonwealth seeks a subpoena from this court to order witness Intercepticon to provide the following information to this Court:

  • Any written or electronic communication, notes, draft documents, or other written or electronic items in their possession that pertain to the drafting or passage of the APGI.


Motion


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

The Commonwealth seeks a subpoena from this court to order witness Milkcrack to provide the following information to this Court:

  • Any written or electronic communication, notes, draft documents, or other written or electronic items in their possession that pertain to the drafting or passage of the Classification Amendment Act.


Motion


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

The Commonwealth seeks a subpoena from this court to order witness Mhadsher101 to provide the following information to this Court:

  • Any written or electronic communication, notes, draft documents, or other written or electronic items in their possession that pertain to the drafting or passage of the Freedom of Confidentiality Act.


Motion


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

The Commonwealth seeks a subpoena from this court to order witness Gwiis to provide the following information to this Court:


Motion


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

The Commonwealth seeks a subpoena from this court to order witness Omegabiebel to provide the following information to this Court:


Motion


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

The Commonwealth seeks a subpoena from this court to order witness xEndeavour to provide the following information to this Court:

  • Any written or electronic communication, notes, draft documents, or other written or electronic items in their possession that pertain to the drafting or passage of the Classification Act.


Motion


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

The Commonwealth seeks a subpoena from this court to order witness Smallfries to provide the following information to this Court:

  • Any written or electronic communication, notes, draft documents, or other written or electronic items in their possession that pertain to the drafting or passage of the Classified Materials Act and/or Classified Materials Act that were created, modified, or otherwise circulated during his tenure as Executive Advisor.


Motion


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

The Commonwealth seeks a subpoena from this court to order former President Kaiserin_ to provide the following information to this Court:

  • Any written or electronic communication, notes, draft documents, or other written or electronic items in their possession that pertain to the drafting or passage of the Classified Materials Act and/or Classified Materials Act that were created, modified, or otherwise circulated during her tenure as President.

Click to expand...
In compliance with the issued subpoena, I submit the following:

A copy of the working document I was sent by Frmr. Rep. gwiis containing the draft of the Classified Materials Act. [Attached via link.]
The above is submitted as a copy rather than the original document itself, as the document was shared to me with suggestion access, and I don't want to open it up to vandalism. Here is proof that I haven't edited the document in any way other than making the copy:
1757542143960.png

I don't know when the current version of the draft document I'm sharing came into being. It is not exactly identical to the final version of the Act, though I'm rather sure that it isn't in the same state as when I received it.

I have attached screenshots of my conversation with Frmr. Rep. gwiis concerning my consultation on and contributions to the Classified Materials Act.
1757542437539.png
1757542461087.png
1757542480217.png
1757542503039.png
1757542518536.png
1757542533994.png
1757542552844.png

To my knowledge, this is all communication and material I have current access to pertaining to the Classified Materials Act.
 
Franciscus said:
Your Honor,

For items 2 and 3, the Commonwealth is a bit confused as to the scope. We ask for reconsideration so as to provide additional clarity:

  • For item 2, the Commonwealth understands this to be the congressional motions that relate to the FOI appeal mentioned in the Complaint's factual allegations. Are we correct in this understanding?
  • For item 3, the Commonwealth understands this to be conversations in the Congress chat that relates to the motions in (2). Are we correct on this?
Click to expand...
As the claims for relief expand to the scope of congressional oversight over Judicial FOIs as a whole, the plaintiff requests that *all* lodged since the passing of this act be presented for the sake of transparency.
Realistically, the plaintiff does not believe this would be too much of a burden on the commonwealth, as within public view, only one such motion has been properly voted on.
 
I would like to request a closed court ticket as i have 2 google doc links that will be vandalized if i share them publicly.

Additionally i would like to notify the court that i am only on phone until the 16th and therefore it is possible some kind of note or file that was saved only on my laptop is not submitted.
 
Franciscus said:

Motion


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

Your Honor:

The response relies upon the Plaintiff's lack of access to a particular channel within the discord of the WPR, a political party. In order to investigate the truth of this response, the Commonwealth would like to examine these messages and provide to the Court these screenshots which the Plaintiff no longer has access to. As the Plaintiff has testified to the existence of these screenshots, and they are relevant to the case, the Commonwealth seeks a subpoena to compel the following from the Workers' Party of Redmont:

  • Any and all messages sent by or in response to Malka in any channels within the discord of the WPR regarding the Classified Materials Act, its predecessor ideas or drafts, or in any other way materially relevant to this case.

Click to expand...
In compliance with the issued subpoena, I submit the following:
1757545866647.png
1757545874650.png
1757545880939.png
1757545886355.png
 
Dogeington said:
In compliance with the issued subpoena, I submit the following:
View attachment 61609
View attachment 61610
View attachment 61611
View attachment 61612
Click to expand...
With WPR complying with their subpoena, I can also confirm that I have no communications with EATB about the classification act [my DMS with them lacks anything, and anything else would have happened in the WPR server, which has been shown not to have anything pertinent either].
 
Franciscus said:
Aladeen - Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Relevance

We already have multiple expertise based witnesses, including Smallfries, who is another sitting justice. The plaintiff worries that by introducing another member of the supreme court as an expert witness, something we already have plenty of- It would risk preventing this case from being appealed in the future by either party under the sitting SCR.

I do not believe it was the commonwealths intent to try and deny this portion of the courts due process, but in the interest of protecting it, we request this witness be struck on the grounds of not biasing a majority of the scr against this case, especially when it is done needlessly as we have an abundance of expertise witnesses already.

 
Kaiserin_ said:
Present, your honour!


In compliance with the issued subpoena, I submit the following:

A copy of the working document I was sent by Frmr. Rep. gwiis containing the draft of the Classified Materials Act. [Attached via link.]
The above is submitted as a copy rather than the original document itself, as the document was shared to me with suggestion access, and I don't want to open it up to vandalism. Here is proof that I haven't edited the document in any way other than making the copy:
View attachment 61599
I don't know when the current version of the draft document I'm sharing came into being. It is not exactly identical to the final version of the Act, though I'm rather sure that it isn't in the same state as when I received it.

I have attached screenshots of my conversation with Frmr. Rep. gwiis concerning my consultation on and contributions to the Classified Materials Act.
View attachment 61601
View attachment 61602
View attachment 61603
View attachment 61604
View attachment 61605
View attachment 61606
View attachment 61607

To my knowledge, this is all communication and material I have current access to pertaining to the Classified Materials Act.
Click to expand...
Permission to respond to this subpoena, your honor? I have a brief pertinent to the transparency of the following information listed in this post, and wish to divulge at the courts behest.
 
aubunny said:

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Relevance

We already have multiple expertise based witnesses, including Smallfries, who is another sitting justice. The plaintiff worries that by introducing another member of the supreme court as an expert witness, something we already have plenty of- It would risk preventing this case from being appealed in the future by either party under the sitting SCR.

I do not believe it was the commonwealths intent to try and deny this portion of the courts due process, but in the interest of protecting it, we request this witness be struck on the grounds of not biasing a majority of the scr against this case, especially when it is done needlessly as we have an abundance of expertise witnesses already.

Click to expand...

Response


Your Honor,

There is no rational basis that the Plaintiff should be able to call a witness of their choosing from the Supreme Court and that the Defense should not be able to call a different one. That the Commonwealth chooses to pursue a vigorous defense against the allegations made against it does not make its own chosen witness irrelevant - this Court cannot endorse a game of "first one to call dibs" when it comes to picking a witness.

 

Brief



The Redmont Civil Liberties Union, by submission of its brief, prays for the prompt dismissal of this action against the Commonwealth.

LACK OF STANDING IS FATAL

  1. The Courts are venues for controversies actually incurred by parties at litigation. To permit academic claims would unconstitutionally expand judicial power.
  2. As Justice Matthew100x observed, “Any case for recapturing the seat lost by any alleged fraud should be prosecuted civilly by the offended party,” which underscores that only the directly injured entity may litigate such claims, not a third party seeking to advance generalized grievances (see Commonwealth v. Bardiya)
  3. In the same opinion, the Justice noted that selective enforcement by the DLA would violate Const Part IV, § (32), (13) , confirming that a partisan or abstract injury cannot support standing.
  4. Standing requires a live, redressable injury, yet as Justice Dartanman concluded, “Bardiya is no longer a Representative, and the seat is being taken up by a separate process,” demonstrating the absence of any remedy the Court could provide.
  5. Together, these holdings confirm that where the alleged harm is either to another party, moot by resignation, or speculative in nature, the claim must be dismissed for lack of standing.
  6. While the Federal Court in Ko531 v. Commonwealth stated that “members of the public can challenge the constitutionality of laws,” this principle cannot be read in isolation to create limitless jurisdiction (see Ko531 v. Commonwealth)
  7. The Plaintiff’s complaint does not allege any injury to themselves, but rather broad dissatisfaction with institutional design, which is precisely the sort of academic claim Rule 2.2 authorizes dismissal for.
  8. Thus, even if the public may generally test statutes, the law still demands compliance with Rule 2.1, and failure to show personal harm is fatal to standing.

NON-JUSTICIABLE CLAIM

  1. The Plaintiff’s allegations concern matters that are inherently political in nature and not suited for judicial resolution.
  2. Complaints about “collapse of trust,” “dishonesty within the Judiciary,” or the allocation of FOI review powers are not legal controversies but policy grievances (Plaintiff’s complaint)
  3. As Justice Dartanman noted in Commonwealth v. Bardiya, attempts to force or undo resignations amount to political maneuvering, not judicially enforceable rights.
  4. Similarly, the Plaintiff’s demand for a public apology from the Speaker of the House and President of the Senate underscores that the relief sought is political theater, not legal remedy.
  5. Entertaining such claims would unconstitutionally blur the separation of powers by inviting the courts to referee political questions.
  6. Accordingly, the claims are non-justiciable and must be dismissed due to the constitutional limits of this Court’s authority.

LEGISLATIVE DISCRETION, INTRA-GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITIES
  1. The Constitution vests judicial power in the courts, but it likewise entrusts to Congress the discretion to establish procedures governing classification and access to public records.
  2. The Plaintiff’s reliance on the phrase “Judicial power is vested in the courts” confuses adjudication of disputes with legislative prerogative to define the scope of FOI processes.
  3. As long as Congress does not usurp the courts’ power to decide live controversies, its allocation of responsibilities remains a valid exercise of legislative discretion.
  4. Further, The Commonwealth itself is not a “citizen” within the meaning of Const Part IV, (32), and therefore does not enjoy or waive rights such as protections against unreasonable search or seizure.
  5. Because the Plaintiff styles the Defendant as the “Commonwealth,” any relief against the State implicates sovereign immunity absent an explicit statutory waiver, which has not been alleged or shown.
  6. Courts have repeatedly recognized that generalized claims directed at the structure or choices of government cannot overcome immunity, as they do not involve a cognizable injury to the Plaintiff.
  7. To hold otherwise would subject the Commonwealth to endless litigation whenever a member of the public objected to governmental design, eroding separation of powers and judicial restraint.
  8. Accordingly, the Commonwealth is immune from suit in this action, and dismissal with prejudice is the only proper course.


 
Muggy21 said:

Brief



The Redmont Civil Liberties Union, by submission of its brief, prays for the prompt dismissal of this action against the Commonwealth.

LACK OF STANDING IS FATAL

Brief



  1. The Courts are venues for controversies actually incurred by parties at litigation. To permit academic claims would unconstitutionally expand judicial power.
  2. As Justice Matthew100x observed, “Any case for recapturing the seat lost by any alleged fraud should be prosecuted civilly by the offended party,” which underscores that only the directly injured entity may litigate such claims, not a third party seeking to advance generalized grievances (see Commonwealth v. Bardiya)
  3. In the same opinion, the Justice noted that selective enforcement by the DLA would violate Const Part IV, § (32), (13) , confirming that a partisan or abstract injury cannot support standing.
  4. Standing requires a live, redressable injury, yet as Justice Dartanman concluded, “Bardiya is no longer a Representative, and the seat is being taken up by a separate process,” demonstrating the absence of any remedy the Court could provide.
  5. Together, these holdings confirm that where the alleged harm is either to another party, moot by resignation, or speculative in nature, the claim must be dismissed for lack of standing.
  6. While the Federal Court in Ko531 v. Commonwealth stated that “members of the public can challenge the constitutionality of laws,” this principle cannot be read in isolation to create limitless jurisdiction (see Ko531 v. Commonwealth)
  7. The Plaintiff’s complaint does not allege any injury to themselves, but rather broad dissatisfaction with institutional design, which is precisely the sort of academic claim Rule 2.2 authorizes dismissal for.
  8. Thus, even if the public may generally test statutes, the law still demands compliance with Rule 2.1, and failure to show personal harm is fatal to standing.

NON-JUSTICIABLE CLAIM

  1. The Plaintiff’s allegations concern matters that are inherently political in nature and not suited for judicial resolution.
  2. Complaints about “collapse of trust,” “dishonesty within the Judiciary,” or the allocation of FOI review powers are not legal controversies but policy grievances (Plaintiff’s complaint)
  3. As Justice Dartanman noted in Commonwealth v. Bardiya, attempts to force or undo resignations amount to political maneuvering, not judicially enforceable rights.
  4. Similarly, the Plaintiff’s demand for a public apology from the Speaker of the House and President of the Senate underscores that the relief sought is political theater, not legal remedy.
  5. Entertaining such claims would unconstitutionally blur the separation of powers by inviting the courts to referee political questions.
  6. Accordingly, the claims are non-justiciable and must be dismissed due to the constitutional limits of this Court’s authority.

LEGISLATIVE DISCRETION, INTRA-GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITIES

  1. The Constitution vests judicial power in the courts, but it likewise entrusts to Congress the discretion to establish procedures governing classification and access to public records.
  2. The Plaintiff’s reliance on the phrase “Judicial power is vested in the courts” confuses adjudication of disputes with legislative prerogative to define the scope of FOI processes.
  3. As long as Congress does not usurp the courts’ power to decide live controversies, its allocation of responsibilities remains a valid exercise of legislative discretion.
  4. Further, The Commonwealth itself is not a “citizen” within the meaning of Const Part IV, (32), and therefore does not enjoy or waive rights such as protections against unreasonable search or seizure.
  5. Because the Plaintiff styles the Defendant as the “Commonwealth,” any relief against the State implicates sovereign immunity absent an explicit statutory waiver, which has not been alleged or shown.
  6. Courts have repeatedly recognized that generalized claims directed at the structure or choices of government cannot overcome immunity, as they do not involve a cognizable injury to the Plaintiff.
  7. To hold otherwise would subject the Commonwealth to endless litigation whenever a member of the public objected to governmental design, eroding separation of powers and judicial restraint.
  8. Accordingly, the Commonwealth is immune from suit in this action, and dismissal with prejudice is the only proper course.


Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Youre honor, this is an embarrassment of an "amicus" brief. The nature of amicus briefs is that of a third party providing insight, advice, or expertise, amicus meaning "friend" in latin.

The plaintiff sees beyond clear use of biased language within the brief, using like terms such as "prays for the immediate dismissal" shows a clear bias which is unacceptable within a brief.

The brief was also filed under providing expertise for constitutional implications of the case, of which the brief flies well beyond of, having a vast majority be about precedent within the judicial courts that may or may not relate to the case at hand.

Your honor, you approved them providing information, not joining the prosecution. Even if the information they provided may or may not be accurate to the case at hand, the clear bias in language, and going well beyond the scope of their brief in order to testify in this court is uncalled for. The plaintiff prays this brief is strucken in full.

 
aubunny said:

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Youre honor, this is an embarrassment of an "amicus" brief. The nature of amicus briefs is that of a third party providing insight, advice, or expertise, amicus meaning "friend" in latin.

The plaintiff sees beyond clear use of biased language within the brief, using like terms such as "prays for the immediate dismissal" shows a clear bias which is unacceptable within a brief.

The brief was also filed under providing expertise for constitutional implications of the case, of which the brief flies well beyond of, having a vast majority be about precedent within the judicial courts that may or may not relate to the case at hand.

Your honor, you approved them providing information, not joining the prosecution. Even if the information they provided may or may not be accurate to the case at hand, the clear bias in language, and going well beyond the scope of their brief in order to testify in this court is uncalled for. The plaintiff prays this brief is strucken in full.

Click to expand...

Response


Your Honor:

The brief was filed "to discuss the constitutional implications of the Complaint and other similar discussion points" (emphasis mine) more generally. The Plaintiff may be unhappy with the outcome of the RCLU's analysis, but the brief did indeed analyze constitutional arguments regarding Const Part IV, (32), and went on to provide expert insight into the nature of the academic claims being filed against the Commonwealth in this case. The brief fulfilled its stated purpose.

What's more The Amicus Brief filed by the RCLU in this case is consistent with the tone and tenor of prior briefs that were accepted by the Courts, such as the briefs presented in Commonwealth of Redmont v. Inknet [2025] DCR 59 and Commonwealth of Redmont v. urb5n [2025] FCR 83. That the RCLU prays that the Court take a particular action in light of its own analysis is not unusual and is perfectly acceptable. What's more, the Federal Court has even explicitly allowed fact-laden briefs in past cases and overruled objections filed against them (such as Galactic Empire of Redmont v. Department of construction and transportation [2025] FCR 78 and AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 99). The Commonwealth does not view the RCLU's brief here as being any differently permissible than the other briefs.

For this reason, the Commonwealth asks that this objection be overruled.

 
aubunny said:

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Youre honor, this is an embarrassment of an "amicus" brief. The nature of amicus briefs is that of a third party providing insight, advice, or expertise, amicus meaning "friend" in latin.

The plaintiff sees beyond clear use of biased language within the brief, using like terms such as "prays for the immediate dismissal" shows a clear bias which is unacceptable within a brief.

The brief was also filed under providing expertise for constitutional implications of the case, of which the brief flies well beyond of, having a vast majority be about precedent within the judicial courts that may or may not relate to the case at hand.

Your honor, you approved them providing information, not joining the prosecution. Even if the information they provided may or may not be accurate to the case at hand, the clear bias in language, and going well beyond the scope of their brief in order to testify in this court is uncalled for. The plaintiff prays this brief is strucken in full.

Click to expand...
Franciscus said:

Response


Your Honor:

The brief was filed "to discuss the constitutional implications of the Complaint and other similar discussion points" (emphasis mine) more generally. The Plaintiff may be unhappy with the outcome of the RCLU's analysis, but the brief did indeed analyze constitutional arguments regarding Const Part IV, (32), and went on to provide expert insight into the nature of the academic claims being filed against the Commonwealth in this case. The brief fulfilled its stated purpose.

What's more The Amicus Brief filed by the RCLU in this case is consistent with the tone and tenor of prior briefs that were accepted by the Courts, such as the briefs presented in Commonwealth of Redmont v. Inknet [2025] DCR 59 and Commonwealth of Redmont v. urb5n [2025] FCR 83. That the RCLU prays that the Court take a particular action in light of its own analysis is not unusual and is perfectly acceptable. What's more, the Federal Court has even explicitly allowed fact-laden briefs in past cases and overruled objections filed against them (such as Galactic Empire of Redmont v. Department of construction and transportation [2025] FCR 78 and AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 99). The Commonwealth does not view the RCLU's brief here as being any differently permissible than the other briefs.

For this reason, the Commonwealth asks that this objection be overruled.

Click to expand...
Objection overruled - in part. First, I generally will allow amicus briefs that bring substantial viewpoints or analysis on legal issues that the parties of the case either 1) don't have a perspective on or 2) bring to light new information/review.

On the Precedent by the defense, I agree with DCR 59, FCR 83, and FCR 78 as ideal methods of amicus briefs and their role. It is understood that organizations with an interest in the case (generally or in support of a single side) will want their opinion to be shared. That is okay as long as it remains a legal analysis (i.e. I would not allow a brief that just says "Judicial FOI Requests are un-Redmontian!").

I also will not allow briefs like the ones found in FCR 99. The briefs provided should have been a witness examination called by a party, not "here is how the mechanics of the game work".

Now, we come to the brief submitted in this case. I approved the amicus brief for analysis that was to "discuss the constitutional implications of the Complaint and other similar discussion points". This reads more like a party brief than an amicus brief, and as such I will limit the weight which I consider it. The amicus brief stays but I will only consider constitutional and policy issues, not duplicative party arguments.
 
Your Honor,

Much to my surprise, I have been elected Speaker of the House. Under Section 5, Subsection 3 of the Constitution, "[t]he Speaker’s first order of business is to amend or reaffirm the extant standing orders of the House of Representatives". Until these Orders are Reaffirmed, the Speaker fears that the Speaker may be constitutionally prohibited from conducting Congressional business, such as by responding to this discovery request.

I am going to be traveling tonight and this weekend. For this reason, I ask that the Commonwealth be given an extension on any pending discovery requests involving messages or communications by the House of Representatives until Monday at 9:30 P.M. Eastern Time.
 
Fair enough, the plaintiff agrees to this extension.
Congrats on the position!
 
Franciscus said:
Your Honor,

Much to my surprise, I have been elected Speaker of the House. Under Section 5, Subsection 3 of the Constitution, "[t]he Speaker’s first order of business is to amend or reaffirm the extant standing orders of the House of Representatives". Until these Orders are Reaffirmed, the Speaker fears that the Speaker may be constitutionally prohibited from conducting Congressional business, such as by responding to this discovery request.

I am going to be traveling tonight and this weekend. For this reason, I ask that the Commonwealth be given an extension on any pending discovery requests involving messages or communications by the House of Representatives until Monday at 9:30 P.M. Eastern Time.
Click to expand...
aubunny said:
Fair enough, the plaintiff agrees to this extension.
Congrats on the position!
Click to expand...
I guess that’s fine.

Let it be known to all: Discovery ends at 12:01 Am on Tuesday MST. I give you a couple extra hours.

I do not want to extend discovery again, so anyone who does not submit their court ordered materials by Tuesday shall be held accountable to the fullest extent possible.
 

Motion


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

The plaintiff wishes to add the following witnesses to the case.

Multiman155- Current SOTH
Click to expand...
Pepecuu- Current POTS
Click to expand...



Both will be brought in to this court in order to better see the process of "Modifying redactions" or "Proper review of classifications" in regards to Judicial FOIs, alongside testimony about behavior of the chambers when reviewing Judicial FOIs.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top