Expungement: Denied APPLICATION RaiTheGuy07 [2026] FCR 28

[MasterAshim]

Username: RaiTheGuy07

I am representing myself

What charges are you seeking to expunge? Murder charges from December 18, 2024 to Febuary 10, 2026

Basis for Expungement: I've keep a clean record for two montsh, and it'll stay this way. A majority of these were from when I was still pretty new to the server, and the recent ones have been cases where I was unable to prove my self defence. If you take a closer look at the victims, many of them were mass murderers, such as TerryJerry, F16FightingFalco, Nebrasken64, AtomicRedstone, and roy405

 

[MasterAshim]

Charges

 

[Franciscus]

Writ of Summons

Attorney General @Superwoops is hereby summoned to the Federal Court in the expungement proceeding APPLICATION RaiTheGuy07 [2026] FCR 27.

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.

 

[Franciscus]

Case re-titled to APPLICATION RaiTheGuy07 [2026] FCR 28; FCR 27 was assigned to an appeal prior to this case's summons being issued.

 

[Superwoops]

I am present.

 

[Franciscus]

I am present.

Thank you for your prompt arrival. Within 72 hours, please post a response advocating for approval or denial of the expungement requested.

 

[Superwoops]

I do believe this citizen has grown into a better person. However, this request must be denied on a procedural basis.

The Information - Expungement Requests rules state that "[the expungement] must be filed by a lawyer." While the thread of these rules does mention the now-repealed Repealed - Standardized Criminal Code Act, the Expungements section in said law is nearly, if not identical to the Expungements section in the Act of Congress - Criminal Code Act.
More importantly, none of these two ever mention the need for a legal qualification as a basis for filing for expungement. Therefore, this is a Judiciary-imposed rule which has not been changed by Congress, and must be upheld.

Let the Court note that RaiTheGuy07 holds no legal qualification. (See E-001)

As per the CCA, "Any citizen who qualifies may bring their request to the courts." Seeing as, through the lens of these Court-imposed rules, the citizen does not qualify, and with the understanding that the Court Rules for expungements have not meaningfully changed since their creation, RaiTheGuy07 is legally unable to file for expungement.

Spoiler: E-001

 

[MasterAshim]

I, RaiTheGuy07, agree for ToadKing to represent me in my expungement request

 

[ToadKing]

I, RaiTheGuy07, agree for ToadKing to represent me in my expungement request

I affirm this statement.

I do believe this citizen has grown into a better person. However, this request must be denied on a procedural basis.

The Information - Expungement Requests rules state that "[the expungement] must be filed by a lawyer." While the thread of these rules does mention the now-repealed Repealed - Standardized Criminal Code Act, the Expungements section in said law is nearly, if not identical to the Expungements section in the Act of Congress - Criminal Code Act.
More importantly, none of these two ever mention the need for a legal qualification as a basis for filing for expungement. Therefore, this is a Judiciary-imposed rule which has not been changed by Congress, and must be upheld.

Let the Court note that RaiTheGuy07 holds no legal qualification. (See E-001)

As per the CCA, "Any citizen who qualifies may bring their request to the courts." Seeing as, through the lens of these Court-imposed rules, the citizen does not qualify, and with the understanding that the Court Rules for expungements have not meaningfully changed since their creation, RaiTheGuy07 is legally unable to file for expungement.

Spoiler: E-001

View attachment 79607

Seeing as this is a formal Federal Court proceeding, and I am duly qualified as an attorney to represent Mr. RaiTheGuy07, I request the opportunity to provide a response to the Attorney General's statements.

 

[Franciscus]

Go for it

I affirm this statement.


Seeing as this is a formal Federal Court proceeding, and I am duly qualified as an attorney to represent Mr. RaiTheGuy07, I request the opportunity to provide a response to the Attorney General's statements.

 

[ToadKing]

I do believe this citizen has grown into a better person. However, this request must be denied on a procedural basis.

The Information - Expungement Requests rules state that "[the expungement] must be filed by a lawyer." While the thread of these rules does mention the now-repealed Repealed - Standardized Criminal Code Act, the Expungements section in said law is nearly, if not identical to the Expungements section in the Act of Congress - Criminal Code Act.
More importantly, none of these two ever mention the need for a legal qualification as a basis for filing for expungement. Therefore, this is a Judiciary-imposed rule which has not been changed by Congress, and must be upheld.

Let the Court note that RaiTheGuy07 holds no legal qualification. (See E-001)

As per the CCA, "Any citizen who qualifies may bring their request to the courts." Seeing as, through the lens of these Court-imposed rules, the citizen does not qualify, and with the understanding that the Court Rules for expungements have not meaningfully changed since their creation, RaiTheGuy07 is legally unable to file for expungement.

Spoiler: E-001

View attachment 79607

Response

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE

Your Honour,

The Attorney General does not contest that RaiTheGuy07 satisfies the substantive criteria for expungement, acknowledging that this citizen "has grown into a better person." The sole basis for denial is procedural: that the expungement must be filed by a licensed legal practitioner. This Court is respectfully asked to reject that position.

The requirement that expungements be "filed by a lawyer" is a court-imposed administrative rule that directly conflicts with the express statutory language of the Criminal Code Act (CCA) and the unbroken legislative intent dating back to the original Expungement Act of 2021.

I. ARGUMENT​

1. The Unbroken Legislative Intent From the Expungement Act to the CCA Confers the Right on "Any Citizen"​

The expungement process has passed through three successive instruments of law, and in each iteration, Congress has maintained consistent and clear language to describe who may file (underlined to emphasise):

Expungement Act (2021):

3 - Eligibility
(1) Expungement is defined as the process in which a good behaviour citizen may request to have a criminal record removed.
(2) Any citizen may file for their criminal records to be removed via expungement, provided it has been at least 2 months since they have been charged with a crime.
(3) Expungement can apply to any charge, with the exception of government offences, such as, but not limited to, corruption and electoral fraud.

4 - Process
1. Any citizen who qualifies may bring their request to the courts, following such process:
(a) The citizen will file an Expungement Request to the Court, to be presided over by a Judge.
(b) The Attorney General, or State’s legal equivalency, will then be called to answer as to whether they meet the criteria or not.
(c) The Judge will then determine a verdict on such a request with the State’s consent.
2. If the respective Judge agrees with the request of the citizen, and has the consent of the State, they may order the Department of Justice to delete such criminal record(s).

Standardised Criminal Code Act (2023):

(5) Expungement (Original: Westray - Mar 22, 2021)
(a) Expungement is defined as the process in which a good behavior citizen may request to have a criminal record removed.
(b) Any citizen may file for their criminal records to be removed via expungement, provided it has been at least 2 months since they have been charged with a crime.
(c) Any citizen who qualifies may bring their request to the courts, following such process:
(i) The citizen will file an Expungement Request to the Federal Court, to be presided over by a Judge or Justice.
(ii) The Attorney General, or State’s legal equivalency, will then be called to answer as to whether they meet the criteria or not.
(iii) The Judge or Justice will then determine a verdict on such a request with the State’s consent.
(d) If the respective Judge or Justice agrees with the request of the citizen, and has the consent of the State, they may order the Department of Homeland Security to delete such criminal record(s).

CCA (2025):

(4) Expungement
(a) Expungement is defined as the process in which a good behavior citizen may request to have a criminal record removed.
(b) Any citizen may file for their criminal records to be removed via expungement, provided it has been at least 2 months since they have been charged with a crime.
(c) Any citizen who qualifies may bring their request to the courts, following such process:
(i) The citizen will file an Expungement Request to the Federal Court, to be presided over by a Judge or Justice.
(ii) The Attorney General, or State’s legal equivalency, will then be called to answer as to whether they meet the criteria or not.
(iii) The Judicial Officer will then determine a verdict on such a request with the State’s consent.
(d) If the respective Judge or Justice agrees with the request of the citizen, and has the consent of the State, they may order the Department of Homeland Security to delete such criminal record(s).

Congress has had multiple opportunities across 5 years to insert a specific "lawyer-qualification requirement" into the expungement process, and on each occasion, it has not done so. The word "any" is unambiguous and without limitation. Where the legislature has wanted to impose a qualification requirement, it knows how to do so - it does exactly that in the Modern Legal Reform Act (MLRA). Its consistent omission of any such requirement from the expungement provisions across every iteration of the law is itself a legislative statement. The informational thread's requirement that expungements "must be filed by a lawyer" is a court-administrative rule. It has no basis in statute and contradicts the plain text of the governing law. Legislative intent, expressed clearly and consistently over five years, must prevail.

The AG's arguments attempt to frame the phrase "any citizen who qualifies" to mean a citizen who meets "court-imposed procedural requirements," including being "legally qualified" or engaging a lawyer to file on their behalf. This reframing must be rejected. The word "qualifies" does not exist in a vacuum - it is defined by the statute itself. The Expungement Act set out the qualifying criterion in plain terms (underlined for emphasis):

(2) Any citizen may file for their criminal records to be removed via expungement, provided it has been at least 2 months since they have been charged with a crime.

That is the qualification. It has been carried forward, word for word, through the Standardised Criminal Code Act and into the CCA without alteration. Congress defined what it means to qualify, and it did not define it as "holding a legal licence" or "securing a lawyer." To accept the AG's reading would be to allow a court-administrative rule to silently rewrite the statute's own definition of eligibility, substituting a criterion Congress never enacted for one it expressly and consistently did enact. The citizen who has not been charged with a crime for two months qualifies. RaiTheGuy07 meets that test. The question of whether they are represented by a lawyer is simply not a qualifying criterion under any iteration of this law, and this Court should decline the invitation to treat it as one.

The AG further submits that, because the court-imposed filing rule has not been changed since its creation, it must be upheld - implying that Congress's failure to override it constitutes tacit acceptance. This reasoning inverts the proper relationship between statute and court procedure. The burden does not fall on Congress to periodically repudiate administrative rules it never authorised. Congress's obligation is to legislate the law - and it has done so, actively and repeatedly, re-enacting "any citizen may file" across three successive instruments spanning five years. That is a consistent, affirmative legislative expression. A court-imposed rule cannot accumulate legitimacy simply by persisting unchallenged, particularly when the statute it contradicts has been actively re-enacted each time.

2. The CCA's Conflict of Laws Provision Resolves Any Ambiguity in Favour of the Citizen​

Even if some perceived tension existed between the court-administrative rule and the statutory framework, the CCA resolves it expressly and decisively. Section 4(1) of the CCA provides:

4 - Conflict of Laws
(1) Where any other Act, regulation, directive, or rule conflicts with a provision of this Code, this Code shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency and the conflicting act will be updated to reflect the content of this act.

The court-administrative rule requiring expungements to be filed by a lawyer is precisely the kind of "rule" contemplated by this provision. It directly conflicts with the CCA's express statement that "any citizen may file for their criminal records to be removed via expungement." There is no reading of these two provisions that can make them consistent - one says any citizen may file; the other says only lawyers may file.

The CCA is unambiguous about the outcome: it prevails. The administrative rule must yield to the statute, not the other way around. A court-imposed procedural rule cannot override a duly enacted Act of Congress. The CCA itself, at Section 2(1), commands that:

2 - Purpose and Spirit of the Law
(1) This Code shall be interpreted to give effect to its purpose and the spirit of the law. Courts and enforcement bodies must avoid construing provisions in a manner that produces absurd, unjust, or unintended results.

It would be precisely such an absurd and unjust result for this Court to read a provision that says "any citizen may file" as meaning "only lawyers may file." That construction does not give effect to the purpose and spirit of the law. The spirit of the expungement process, unchanged since 2021, is to provide a meaningful avenue of relief to citizens who have demonstrated good behaviour. Erecting a qualification barrier that Congress has never once chosen to impose would hollow out that purpose and produce exactly the kind of unintended result the CCA expressly instructs courts to avoid.

3. The Modern Legal Reform Act Does Not Apply to Expungement Requests​

The AG's position implicitly relies on the MLRA's framework to restrict who may file expungement requests. The MLRA governs the practice of law - representation of clients, filing of cases on behalf of others, and the provision of legal advice as a professional service. It establishes ranks (Solicitor, Barrister, Attorney) and regulates who may appear in which courts in a professional legal capacity.

An expungement request is materially different. It is a personal petition filed by a citizen seeking relief relating to their own criminal record. It is not a lawsuit. It is not advocacy on behalf of a third party. It is not the provision of legal services. The MLRA is entirely silent on expungement requests - it does not list them among the matters requiring legal qualification, nor does it amend or address the previous Standardised Criminal Code Act's or CCA's expungement provisions in any way.

Where a statute does not speak to a matter, it cannot be read to regulate it. The MLRA's silence on expungements is confirmation that Congress did not intend the legal qualification framework to apply to citizens filing personal petitions on their own behalf.

4. Constitutional Protections Reinforce the Citizen's Right to File​

Section 35(13) of the Constitution guarantees:

(13) 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.

The CCA confers the benefit of expungement on "any citizen" who meets the substantive criteria. That benefit is rendered meaningless if access to it is conditional on securing a lawyer. A citizen who can obtain legal representation may petition; one who cannot is entirely foreclosed - not because they fail the criteria Congress established, "it has been at least 2 months since they have been charged with a crime," but because of a court-imposed barrier Congress never chose to create. The equal protection guarantee requires that citizens receive equal "benefit". Where Congress has said "any citizen may file", a procedural rule that makes the benefit available only to some citizens is discriminatory in its practical effect. This Court should not be the instrument by which a statutory right, consistently granted to all citizens for five years, is silently redistributed to only those with the financial means of obtaining legal representation.

II. CONCLUSION​

The only question before this Court is a procedural one, and on that question the law is clear.

Congress has said, three times across five years, that "any citizen may file for their criminal records to be removed via expungement." It has defined what it means to qualify. It has never imposed a statutory requirement that a lawyer file an expungement. The court-administrative rule that purports to add that requirement has no statutory basis, directly conflicts with the governing legislation, and is conclusively overridden by the CCA's own Conflict of Laws provision. It cannot be sustained without this Court producing precisely the kind of absurd and unjust result the CCA expressly forbids.

RaiTheGuy07 is a citizen. He has not been charged with a crime in the requisite period. He meets the only qualification the law has ever required. To deny him access to this process on the basis of a rule Congress never enacted is to deny him the equal benefit of a right the legislature has consistently and unambiguously extended to him.

This Court is respectfully asked to find that no legal qualification is required to file an expungement request, and to allow this matter to proceed to a determination on its merits.

 

[Franciscus]

The Attorney General ( @Superwoops ) shall have 48 hours to respond.

 

[Superwoops]

Brief

Your honour,

Applicant's counsel alleges that:
a. The Court-imposed rule is in conflict with the CCA, and;
b. The Criminal Code Act takes precedence over the Court-imposed rule.


There is no conflict

Let us first go over the wording of the CCA. Applicant reads "any citizen may file" as a clause conferring absolute authority for any citizen to file an expungement request, in any case. Applicant's argument is not convincing. Let us draw a comparison:
The Constitution grants all citizens the right to "appeal a charge made against them by the state." Does this grant the citizen the right to appear in Court and represent themselves, even when they hold no legal qualification? No, it does not. The MLRA fills in the gap and is clear in that sense; the citizen must possess some type of legal qualification, or they may also choose to be represented by a lawyer. There is no conflict between the two, only complementation.

In the same way that the clause in the Constitution is not an administrative requirement, any citizen may file is arguably vague phrasing, and easily comparable to the example pointed out above. This gap is filled by the Court-imposed rule. Do bear in mind that this does not infringe on a citizen's right to file for expungement, but this right does not collapse the administrative framework that exists around it.

For a conflict to arise, two conditions cannot be met simultaneously. These two conditions can be met simultaneously provided that a lawyer files the request. The right will always belong to the citizen, but there are rules in place.


Legislative silence

The Applicant states that because of Congress' silence on the topic, it has rejected the court rule. Because there is no conflict, there is no ambiguity: the Courts have the right to create and impose their own rules of procedure, and enforce said procedures in Court.

Additionally, is it possible Congress did not make any mention of the need for legal representation because it was always assumed licensed legal practitioners would always file these types of petitions? Or even because they knew the Court-imposed rule was in place? Certainly. Therefore this silence does not necessarily imply disapproval nor lack of intent.


The MLRA

It's interesting that the Applicant brings up the Modern Legal Reform Act. Again, because it has been proven that no conflict exists, the MLRA is applicable. An expungement request is a case filed in Court: it petitions the Court to do something, even if not necessarily a lawsuit. Therefore, a Barrister or higher is required to file the petition not only through the Court-imposed rule but also because of the wording of the MLRA.

​

 

[Franciscus]

Thank you.

Court will remain open for 48 hours from the time of this post. If nothing else is filed in that time, we will then automatically enter a recess pending verdict.

 

[ToadKing]

Thank you.

Court will remain open for 48 hours from the time of this post. If nothing else is filed in that time, we will then automatically enter a recess pending verdict.

The Applicant is inclined to waive these 48 hours if the Respondent is willing to do so.

 

[Superwoops]

The Respondent agrees

 

[Franciscus]

Court is in recess pending final order.

 

[Franciscus]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
FINAL ORDER - APPLICATION RaiTheGuy07 [2026] FCR 28​

Applicant RaiTheGuy07 seeks expungement of various criminal records on the basis that more than two months have passed since he was last charged with a crime. The Commonwealth opposes the granting of the expungement because the Applicant did not initially file the application for expungement through a qualified barrister or attorney, but does not contest that it has been 2 months since RaiTheGuy07 has been charged with a crime.

The key question thus becomes: When, if ever, may the Federal Court deny expungement other than failure to demonstrate that two months have passed since an applicant was last charged with a crime?

Below, the Court provides a long-form order, including a summary, statement of facts, an analysis of the relevant law as applied to this case, and a conclusion on the request for expungement.

I. Summary of Pleadings​

Applicant RaiTheGuy07 filed a requests for expungement pro se on April 10 (Application). In that application, the Applicant stated that he had kept a clean record for two months and intended to keep up this good behavior going forward. He blamed his more recent convictions on failure to prove self-defense, and maintains that the vast majority of his crimes occurred when he was newer on the server. A list of charges was provided by the Applicant to the Court (Post No. 2).

The Attorney General, while affirming that the applicant had grown into a better person, requested that the Court deny the expungement request for what the AG viewed as a procedural violation (Post No. 7). The AG provided a screenshot that appeared to demonstrate that the Applicant lacked legal qualifications, (Exhibit E-001) and argued that the pro se filing violated the Federal Court’s requirement that expungement requests be filed by a lawyer.

The Plaintiff, through counsel, argued that such a denial was not required by the text of the CCA, that the MLRA was not applicable to expungement requests, and that a reading of the CCA in light of the 14th Charter right would render the denial as unduly burdening that right. The Attorney General, on behalf of the Commonwealth, argued in response that the MLRA and the CCA should be read as complimentary rather than contradicting and that the Court may, notwithstanding the CCA, nevertheless enforce its own procedures regarding representation requirements.

II. Factual Record​

The Court states the following facts that it has found and relied upon in its analysis:

1. RaiTheGuy07 filed this application pro se, while lacking any legal qualifications;
2. RaiTheGuy07 provided a list of crimes to this Court, the most recent of which occurred more than two months prior to the application for expungement;
3. Both RaiTheGuy07 and the Commonwealth view RaiTheGuy07 as a changed man;
4. The Commonwealth initially withheld consent to the expungement on the belief that RaiTheGuy07's expungement suffered from a procedural defect on account of (1), requesting for the Court to deny it;
5. Following the Commonwealth's initial request to deny the expungement, the Applicant was represented by a qualified attorney, who provided a response pleading to the Commonwealth's initial filing requesting that expungement be denied; and
6. Subsequent to the filing by the Applicant's learned counsel, the Commonwealth filed a response in opposition to the arguments put forward by the Applicant's counsel. This filing did not contain consent to expunge the records of the applicant.

III. Opinion of the Court​

III.A More Than Just Two Months of Good Behavior Is Required for Expungement​

In assessing this case, we must first ask ourselves "what law applies and where" (End v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 31). The statutory law governing the expungement process is set forth in the Criminal Code Act as follows:

(4) Expungement
(a) Expungement is defined as the process in which a good behavior citizen may request to have a criminal record removed.
(b) Any citizen may file for their criminal records to be removed via expungement, provided it has been at least 2 months since they have been charged with a crime.
(c) Any citizen who qualifies may bring their request to the courts, following such process:
(i) The citizen will file an Expungement Request to the Federal Court, to be presided over by a Judge or Justice.
(ii) The Attorney General, or State’s legal equivalency, will then be called to answer as to whether they meet the criteria or not.
(iii) The Judicial Officer will then determine a verdict on such a request with the State’s consent.
(d) If the respective Judge or Justice agrees with the request of the citizen, and has the consent of the State, they may order the Department of Homeland Security to delete such criminal record(s).

(CCA, Part I, Section 6(4)).

The language "if the respective Judge or Justice agrees with the request of the citizen, and has the consent of the State, they may order the Department of Homeland Security to delete such criminal record(s)" is not a mere formality. The Court, upon review of past expungements, has found that the Federal Court may express independent judgement here.

In BenTDM [2022] FCR 4, which was considered under the since-repealed Expungement Act, the Court approached an expungement request where the statutory law was materially similar to the current statute in the ways relevant for this analysis:

1. Any citizen who qualifies may bring their request to the courts, following such process:
(a) The citizen will file an Expungement Request to the Court, to be presided over by a Judge.
(b) The Attorney General, or State’s legal equivalency, will then be called to answer as to whether they meet the criteria or not.
(c) The Judge will then determine a verdict on such a request with the State’s consent.
2. If the respective Judge agrees with the request of the citizen, and has the consent of the State, they may order the Department of Justice to delete such criminal record(s).

(Expungement Act, Section 4).

In that case, the Federal Court wrote: "In regards to the two counts of murder, while they do meet the appropriate criteria needed for expungement, I cannot say clearly that you are a changed man... Therefore, I will deny the expungement request" (BenTDM [2022] FCR 4). The phrase “if the respective Judge [or Justice] agrees with the request of the citizen” therefore establishes an independent requirement for expungement. So too does language regarding "the consent of the State" establish an independent requirement.

By examining the history of the Court's ruling on expungement, the Court reading solidifies that the CCA sets multiple, independent requirements for expungement:

1. A citizen filing must have waited 2 months since they were last charged with a crime;
2. The consent of the State is given to expungement;
3. The consent of the presiding Judge or Justice is given to expungement.

Requirement (1) is satisfied. Requirement (2) is not. Because the State has not consented, the Court need not determine whether it would independently agree with the request under requirement (3). Absent consent of the State to expungement, this Court cannot grant it.

III.B The State's Withholding of Consent has not been Demonstrated to Violate the Charter​

Although the absence of State consent is sufficient to prevent the Court from granting expungement, the Court addresses whether the Commonwealth’s withholding of consent was arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise violative of the Charter. In doing so, we examine the requirements that the CCA, and separately the Constitution itself, place upon applicants.

III.B.1 The Criminal Code Act Permits Any Citizen to Seek Expungement; It Does Not Limit Expungement Requests to Lawyers with Barrister+ Qualifications​

The Criminal Code Act purports to supersede all other statutes:

(1) Where any other Act, regulation, directive, or rule conflicts with a provision of this Code, this Code shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency and the conflicting act will be updated to reflect the content of this act.

(CCA, Part I, Section 4, emphasis in original).

While the language "and the conflicting act will be updated to reflect the content of this act" may be constitutionally dubious due to its vagueness and lack of clearly cognizable command, such is not relevant to our analysis here. We only need conclude that the Criminal Code Act prevails when other laws are inconsistent with it.

Applying that here, the Court finds that the language of "[a]ny citizen may file" (CCA, Part I, Section 6(4)(a)) is unambiguous: any citizen may file. This was not "any citizen with proper legal qualifications can file", nor "any lawyer may file", nor "some citizens, but not others, may file". The law states "[a]ny citizen may file". The only restriction on filing is that "it has been at least 2 months since they have been charged with a crime". The "Any citizen who qualifies" language, therefore, is read to be referring to this restriction as the sole qualification.

As such, an analysis of statute on the filings of expungements are not restricted to qualified barristers nor attorneys, regardless of any other statutory provision that might purport to impose such a restriction; such a clause in the CCA overrules the general principles of qualification articulated in the Modern Legal Reform Act and provides for a rule governing expungements that is different from the general law; lex specialis derogat legi generali.

If the CCA were controlling on this issue, the denial would thus appear to be arbitrary and based on based on a demonstrably false premise. Such arbitrary and capricious denials might even unduly burden the "right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law" (Const. 35(13)).

There's just one problem: the CCA is not the supreme guiding law here. Rather, our "Constitution is the highest law of the Commonwealth. It binds all institutions, people, and overrides any law or authority that conflicts with it" (Const., Preamble). We thus must examine whether Constitutional authority was invoked or may itself override the provisions in the CCA analyzed above.

III.B.2 Denying Expungement Based on Federal Court Instructions Requiring Legal Representation does not Violate the Charter​

The Commonwealth's argument did not rely on statute alone; it relied upon the existence of "Court-imposed rules" requiring representation by a lawyer before the Federal Court (Post No. 7). Because the Federal Court may "require legal representation for parties appearing before the Court" (Const. 18(3)(b)), and the the exercise of that power is constitutional in nature, ordinary statute may not limit this power. Just as "a regular statute cannot limit the Senate in exercising a power the Constitution gives exclusively to it" (Toadking v The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] SCR 18), a regular statute likewise cannot separately limit the constitutional authority of the Federal Court to require legal representation for those making filings within it. The general principle that powers granted uniquely by the Constitution to one entity or branch cannot be limited by mere statute is at the core of the principle of separation of powers and thus of our Constitutional order.

The Federal Court requires that expungements "must be filed by a lawyer" (see: Expungement Requests), as we have ever since no later than January 2022 (Internet Archive: Expungement Requests). The "must be filed by a lawyer" language, having persisted throughout all this time, has been the consistent filing requirement of the Federal Court.

In short, while this Court unambiguously rejects the proposition that the Applicant is barred by statute from self-filing an expungement request, the argument given by the Commonwealth relies on the Constitutional authority of the Federal Court to require representation. That argument is legally sufficient, and the Court thus does not find that the denial by the Commonwealth was arbitrary or capricious in a way that burdened a Charter right.

Even assuming arguendo the later appearance of counsel could cure the filing defect, the Commonwealth has not affirmatively consented to expungement. Because State consent is independently required, the Court cannot grant the request.

III.C This Filing Is Not a Frivolous Court Case​

The Expungement Requests page states that expungements "must be filed by a lawyer and there must be good reason for filing it, or else it will be dismissed as a frivolous case."

While that language in the Expungement Requests page is rather old (see: Internet Archive: Expungement Requests), the operative definition of a frivolous court case has remained materially consistent. Savior Act Section 3(7) stated that "Frivolous Court Case is act of Lodging a legal case that has no serious purpose or value". The Savior* Act repealed the Savior Act and inserted into the Miscellaneous Offenses Act the summary criminal offense of Frivolous Court Case, defined as "Lodging a legal case that has no serious purpose or value". The Criminal Code Act states that a frivolous court case occurs when a person "lodges a legal case that has no serious purpose or value" (CCA, Part III, Section 4(a)).

The Court, however, finds the warning difficult to reconcile with the statutory definition. Applying the plain meaning of the statutory text, an expungement request by someone who (statutorily) would qualify to file one would have serious purpose (to seek the removal of past charges) and serious value (inasmuch as expungement would allow people to obtain the benefit of a clean record). The Court thus cannot conclude that the filings lacked serious purpose and serious value, and declines to charge the applicant under our powers granted in CCA, Part I, Section 6(2)(c) (i.e. that "Judicial Officers may impose punishments for any Summary Offense committed during proceedings").

IV. Conclusion​

The Court, in summary, distinguishes between statutory eligibility to apply for expungement and constitutional requirements regarding filing procedure. The Criminal Code Act permits any citizen who satisfies the two-month requirement to seek expungement (Section III.B.1). But the Constitution separately authorizes the Federal Court to regulate practice before it, including by requiring legal representation (Section III.B.2). The CCA’s eligibility language does not and cannot eliminate that constitutional procedural authority held by the Federal Court. Accordingly, the Applicant was not statutorily ineligible to seek expungement, but the Commonwealth’s opposition based on the Federal Court’s lawyer-filing requirement was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

Because the State has not consented to expungement, this expungement request is denied without prejudice to future expungement requests. This Order does not bar the Applicant from immediately applying for expungement anew. Provided that the Applicant has not been charged with a crime in the interim, the Applicant may re-apply through a licensed lawyer.

The Court will not impose, refer, nor recommend any Frivolous Court Case charge based on these filings.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155