Expungement: Granted APPLICATION .Savannah212467 [2026] FCR 37

[pricelessAgrari]

Username: pricelessAgrari

I am representing a client

Who is your Client?: .Savannah212467

What charges are you seeking to expunge? Breach of Attorney-Client Privilege (January 3rd, 2026)

Basis for Expungement: Your Honor,
It has been many months since their last offense, and they have maintained adequate behavior to be considered for an expungement. As many people can attest, they are truly a wonderful person, and shouldn't be held against a small mistake they made. This is a small breach, and I don't even believe they should have been found guilty on this.

Additionally, the petitioner has applied to the DoJ as an Investigator and Prosecutor and has been accepted by the Attorney General. This shows their trustworthiness, since the DoJ is a prestigious department.

We hope you will choose to hear their case and possibly grant our request.

 

[pricelessAgrari]

 

[Franciscus]

Writ of Summons

Attorney General @Superwoops is hereby summoned to the Federal Court in the expungement proceeding APPLICATION .Savannah212467 [2026] FCR 37.

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.

 

[Superwoops]

I am present.

 

[Franciscus]

I am present.

Please provide an answer as to whether the Applicant meets the criteria for expungement or not, as well as your recommendation on expungement, within the next 48 hours.

 

[pricelessAgrari]

Please provide an answer as to whether the Applicant meets the criteria for expungement or not, as well as your recommendation on expungement, within the next 48 hours.

Objection

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

Your Honor, the Attorney General has yet to appear and provide a recommendation for expungement in a timely manner, 48 hours. This violates the previous order you gave (seen above), as well as my client’s right to a speedy trial.

 

[Superwoops]

Apologies, I have exams season this week.
Seeing as this is not a trial because your client has not suffered an injury, but rather is applying for a privilege to be bestowed upon them, I believe no harm has been done due to my short delay.
That being said, breach of attorney-client privilege is a serious offense. I was initially hesitant to approve this request. Furthermore, Applicant’s counsel argument that because the Applicant joined the DOJ, they are trustworthy is very close to an appeal to authority fallacy.
However, I propose a twist to this argument. The Applicant has become a trustworthy individual, and thus was accepted into the DOJ, not the other way around.
As such, the Attorney General is confident this will not be a reoccurring issue, and trusts that the Applicant has learned her lesson.
I approve of this request, as it is clear to me that the criteria are met.

 

[Franciscus]

Objection

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

Your Honor, the Attorney General has yet to appear and provide a recommendation for expungement in a timely manner, 48 hours. This violates the previous order you gave (seen above), as well as my client’s right to a speedy trial.

Sustained in part. When the Court gives a timeline, it should be respected. In general—if you need more time, please ask for an extension rather than assuming one.

I know exams is a busy time in which one needs to be extremely focused on study, so the Court will cut some slack here and not hold the Attorney General in contempt. The above warning on timeliness should suffice.

That being said, a single 24-hour delay in an expungement proceeding does not violate a right to speedy trial. This should not be read as an endorsement of that constitutional theory.

 

[Franciscus]

Apologies, I have exams season this week.
Seeing as this is not a trial because your client has not suffered an injury, but rather is applying for a privilege to be bestowed upon them, I believe no harm has been done due to my short delay.
That being said, breach of attorney-client privilege is a serious offense. I was initially hesitant to approve this request. Furthermore, Applicant’s counsel argument that because the Applicant joined the DOJ, they are trustworthy is very close to an appeal to authority fallacy.
However, I propose a twist to this argument. The Applicant has become a trustworthy individual, and thus was accepted into the DOJ, not the other way around.
As such, the Attorney General is confident this will not be a reoccurring issue, and trusts that the Applicant has learned her lesson.
I approve of this request, as it is clear to me that the criteria are met.

Seeing affirmative consent of the state for expungement, we are in recess pending a final order.

 

[Franciscus]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
FINAL ORDER — APPLICATION .Savannah212467 [2026] FCR 37​

---

Applicant .Savannah212467, through learned counsel, seeks expungement of the crime of Breach of Attorney-Client Privilege. The Applicant pleads that the charge for the offense occurred on January 3rd, 2026 (application), and provided a screenshot containing a wanted record that was dated to March 12, 2026 (Post No. 2). The state was called by the Court, consented to the expungement, and stated that all criteria for expungement were met (Post No. 7).

The Court takes a moment to consider the relevant law. "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" (CCA, Part I, Section 6(4)(b)).

Breaching Attorney-Client Privilege is an indictable crime (CCA, Part X, Section 6), meaning that the crime "must be prosecuted through formal legal proceedings, where the accused is entitled to a fair trial and the opportunity to contest the charges before a judicial officer" (CCA, Part I, Section 7(3), emphasis mine). When considering indictable crimes, we must thus keep in mind that the time at which one is charged with a crime is different than the time at which they are convicted; charging happens when charges are laid, but conviction only happens at the conclusion of a trial.

We examine the underlying trial record to directly address the discrepancy in the timing presented by the Applicant. In Commonwealth of Redmont v. .Savannah212467 [2026] FCR 3, the prosecution filed a criminal complaint on January 17. It is that date that the charges were laid: not sooner and not later. While the Applicant in the instant case was found guilty of the indictable crime on February 26 (see: Commonwealth of Redmont v. .Savannah212467 [2026] FCR 3, Post No. 72), it would be error to hold this as the date at which the two-month clock began ticking. It be equally erroneous to use the date that the police actually executed the punishment by arresting the Applicant (that is, the date shown in the screenshot within Post No. 2).

As such, the Court concurs with the State that the Applicant had fulfilled all statutory requirements to file expungement. The Court thus may now consider whether to give its independent consent to expungement, which is a requirement for expungement to proceed (see: APPLICATION RaiTheGuy07 [2026] FCR 28, Section III.A, finding that "the Federal Court may express independent judgement" on whether to deny expungements independently of whether the State consents). While we are confused by the date stated in the application, we do not find this confusion a compelling reason to withhold our consent here. The Court grants its consent to this expungement.

The expungement request is therefore granted in full. The Department of Homeland Security is ordered to effect all necessary changes to Applicant’s criminal record that granting expungement requires.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155