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

ameslap

ameslap

Citizen
Congressional Staff
State Department
Justice Department
Supporter
5th Anniversary Change Maker Staff Popular in the Polls
ameslap
ameslap
Press Assistant
Joined
Jan 7, 2025
Messages
385

Motion


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

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

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

Thank you,
Ameslap

 
ameslap said:

Motion


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

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

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

Thank you,
Ameslap

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

Court Order


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

Granted.

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


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


So ordered,
Judge Mug

 
Last edited:
Muggy21 said:

Court Order


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

Granted.

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


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


So ordered,
Judge Mug

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Ameslap (Represented by Ameslap, AsexualDinosaur, Juniperfig)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The Congress erred in their decision to hear and decide a Judicial Freedom of Information Appeal. By conducting such a hearing, and voting to approve or deny such a request, they have overstepped their Constitutional power by interpreting and executing the law.
Click to expand...
I. PARTIES
1. Ameslap (Plaintiff per precedent set in [2025] FCR 87 and [2024] FCR 33)
2. Commonwealth (Defendant)

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

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

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


By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 26th day of November 2025

 
Muggy21 said:

Court Order


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

Granted.

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


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


So ordered,
Judge Mug

Click to expand...

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

Writ of Summons

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

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

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


Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

 
The Court has setup a Closed Court ticket on the Judiciary Discord pre-emptively, considering classified material may be brought in.
 
End said:
Requesting to file an amicus brief on constitutional accountability measures and how it relates to judicial deliberations.
Click to expand...

Declined.
 
Your Honor,

I am present on behalf of the Commonwealth.
 
Thanks Counselor,

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

THIS IS STRUCK, AN ANSWER HAS NOT BE FILED.
 
Muggy21 said:
Thanks Counselor,

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

What is the deadline for us to file an answer to complaint?
 
Franciscus said:
Your Honor,

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

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

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Ameslap (Represented by Ameslap, AsexualDinosaur, Juniperfig)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

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

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

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

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


By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 26th day of November 2025

Click to expand...

Objection


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

Your Honor,

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

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

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

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

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

1764518960497.png
1764520915811.png
1764519575856.png
1764519593345.png
1764521015064.png
1764521043774.png

 
Your Honor,

The Defense requests an 18-hour extension to file the Answer to complaint.
Muggy21 said:
Jumping the gun, my bad lol
You have 48 Hours to offer an Answer.
Click to expand...
 
Franciscus said:

Objection


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

Your Honor,

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

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

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

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

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

View attachment 68037
View attachment 68043
View attachment 68039
View attachment 68041
View attachment 68044
View attachment 68045

Click to expand...

Brief


RESPONSE TO OBJECTION
Your honour,

There are multiple issues with this objection:

  1. I was given Security Clearance.
  2. The Toad FOI Request was never Classified.
  3. I claim Whistle Blower Protection.
  4. Classification was never enforceable due to the illegal activity within them.
1. I WAS GIVEN A SECURITY CLEARANCE
The Defendant claims that I "illegally" viewed classified materials. However, under the Classified Materials Act, access is lawful where the individual was granted access.

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

2. TOAD'S FOI REQUEST AND THE APPEAL WAS NEVER CLASSIFIED
The Classified Materials Act requires:
(1) A document, file, message, or Discord channel must be explicitly marked by an authorised individual for classification to be enforceable. The designation, scope, and duration of the classification must be written down in the appropriate list.
Click to expand...

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

2.png

3.png

4.png

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

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

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

(c) The individual acted in good faith and not for personal or political gain.
Click to expand...
A - My disclosure concerned Congress violating the boundaries of its authority, which is one of the highest forms of public-interest concern possible.

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

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

4. CLASSIFICATION WAS NEVER ENFORCEABLE DUE TO THE ILLEGAL ACTIVITY OF CONGRESS
Any such classification was moot due to the illegal activity of Congress:
(9) Classification may strictly not be applied for any of the following reasons:

(a) To cover up breaches of laws, rules or regulations;
Click to expand...
I witnessed a crime occur when Congress overreached its authority to interpret the Classification Act and vote on the FOI Appeal. The contents within the ticket where these illegal actions took place have no classification.

 

Court Order


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

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

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


OVERRULED.

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