Expungement: Pending 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 While the thread of these rules does mention the now-repealed Repealed - Standardized Criminal Code Act, the Expungements section in said law is nearly, if not identical to the Expungements section in the Act of Congress -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.