Lawsuit: Adjourned Commonwealth of Redmont v. Anthony_Org [2025] SCR 21

Status
Not open for further replies.
ameslap

ameslap

Citizen
State Department
Supporter
Education Department
Justice Department
5th Anniversary Change Maker Staff Popular in the Polls
ameslap
ameslap
Press Assistant
Joined
Jan 7, 2025
Messages
435

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION

Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Anthony_org
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Prosecution alleges criminal actions committed by the Defendant as follows:

Anthony_org disclosed sensitive political information that was not already publicly released on separate occasions.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES
1. Commonwealth of Redmont
2. Anthony_org

II. FACTS
All times and dates in MST.
1. On November 8, 2025 at 12:27 PM, Anthony_org posted in the #politics channel of the DemocracyCraft Discord saying “THESE FILES HAVE BEEN SENT TO ME BY A CONCERNED CITIZEN”, attaching 7 documents to the message. (P-001 - P-008)
2. On November 8, 2025 at 12:59 PM, Anthony_org posted in the #politics channel of the DemocracyCraft Discord attaching 1 document to the message. (P-010)
3. On November 9, 2025 at 12:12 AM, Anthony_org posted in the #politics channel of the DemocracyCraft Discord attaching 1 screenshot to the message. (P-011)
4. Anthony_org is NOT a member of the WPR or its leadership.
5. On November 8, 2025 at 12:36 PM, Anthony_org posted in the #politics channel of the DemocracyCraft Discord saying “I admit to being too cool for the DoJ to prosecute me”. (P-012)
6. The document titled “WPR_CC_part_4 is from a member-only channel. (P-013)
7. WPR_CC_part_4 included messages about a vote to remove Gribble19 from WPR leadership, and is sensitive in nature.
8. The document titled “Second Leak” contained messages from a WPR member-only channel. (P-013)
9. The messages in “Second Leak” included WPR internal debate and conflict.
10. The document titled “THIRD LEAK” contained messages from a WPR member-only channel. (P-013)
11. “THID LEAK” included WPR internal political strategy on aligning and supporting other parties.
12. The document titled “WPR TOXICITY” contained messages from a WPR member-only channel. (P-013)
13. “WPR TOXICITY” included internal political strategy on aligning and supporting other parties.
14. The document titled “WPR CC Part 1” included messages from WPR member-only AND WPR leadership-only channels. (P-013)
15. “WPR CC Part 1” included a discussion on WPR membership decisions.
16. The document titled “WPR CC Part 2” included messages from WPR member-only AND WPR leadership-only channels. (P-013)
17. “WPR CC Part 2” included a discussion and debate on drafting legislation.
18. The document titled “WPR CC Part 3” included messages from WPR member-only AND WPR leadership-only channels. (P-013)
19. “WPR CC Part 3” included more discussion on the removal of Gribble19, a sensitive subject.

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. One Count of Political Espionage: Anthony_org posted in a single instance 7 documents containing sensitive political information that have not been released to the public and were restricted to WPR members and leaders.

2. One Count of Political Espionage: Anthony_org posted one document in a separate instance containing sensitive political information that has not been released to the public and was restricted to WPR members and leaders.

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. For the first instance: 200 Penalty Units; 60 minutes imprisonment; 2 Months of disqualification from office.
2. For the second instance: 200 Penalty Units; 60 minutes imprisonment; 2 Months of disqualification from office.

For a total sentence of 400 Penalty Units, 120 minutes imprisonment, and 4 months of disqualification from office.

V. WITNESS LIST
1. Anthony_org - Defendant
2. Sir_Dogeington - WPR Secretary-General
3. Omegabiebel - Eye-witness
4. RealImza - Eye-witness
5. Scassany - NDP Founder

VI. EVIDENCE
Due to the size of some of the files, evidence is presented in this Google Drive as well.
P-001.png
See Google Drive

See Google Drive

See Google Drive

See Google Drive

See Google Drive

See Google Drive

See Google Drive

P-009.png
See Google Drive

P-011.png
P-012.png
P-013.png

By making this submission, I agree that 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 22 day of December 2025


*Edit was correcting the date.
 
Last edited:
The Federal Court removes this action to the Supreme Court, the requested sentencing exceeds the jurisdiction of the Federal Court.


The Caption is amended to Commonwealth v. Anthony_Org [2025] SCR 21
 
This case has been removed to the Supreme Court of Redmont and properly restyled as Commonwealth of Redmont v. Anthony_Org [2025] SCR 21.


Writ of Summons



@Anthony_Org is required to appear before the Supreme Court in the case of Commonwealth of Redmont v. Anthony_Org [2025] SCR 21.

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.

 
Your Honor,
The Defence and Prosecution are arranging a plea deal so I request an additional 5 days before the Defence is required to give their plea.
 
Anthony_Org said:
Your Honor,
The Defence and Prosecution are arranging a plea deal so I request an additional 5 days before the Defence is required to give their plea.
Click to expand...
Technically speaking, we haven't asked for a plea just yet. I'll recognize your appearance here and set a deadline of 120 hours from this post (five days) for a plea from the defense.
 
Smallfries said:
Technically speaking, we haven't asked for a plea just yet. I'll recognize your appearance here and set a deadline of 120 hours from this post (five days) for a plea from the defense.
Click to expand...
I find the defendant (@Anthony_Org) in Contempt of Court and assign him ten penalty units with that charge. The deadline elapsed yesterday.

The defendant shall have twenty-four hours from this post to produce a plea. This brings the total amount of time to over six day, or over three times as long as is typically allowed. Failure to plea before this court in the time allotted will result in another contempt of court charge, and potentially default judgment.
 
Last edited:
Your honor, we have reached a plea deal:

Anthony_org agrees to plea guilty or no contest and we are dropping the ban from public office sentencing.
 
Smallfries said:
I find the defendant (@Anthony_Org) in Contempt of Court and assign him ten penalty units with that charge. The deadline elapsed yesterday.

The defendant shall have twenty-four hours from this post to produce a plea. This brings the total amount of time to over six day, or over three times as long as is typically allowed. Failure to plea before this court in the time allotted will result in another contempt of court charge, and potentially default judgment.
Click to expand...

Motion


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion for Reconsideration

Your honor, I was late posting the plea agreement that was finalized last night. I ask that the court give some leeway to the Defendant and not hold them in Contempt for my tardiness.

Thank you.

 
ameslap said:

Motion


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion for Reconsideration

Your honor, I was late posting the plea agreement that was finalized last night. I ask that the court give some leeway to the Defendant and not hold them in Contempt for my tardiness.

Thank you.

Click to expand...
Very well, I will belay that charge. The previous order is struck as null.
 
ameslap said:
Your honor, we have reached a plea deal:

Anthony_org agrees to plea guilty or no contest and we are dropping the ban from public office sentencing.
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court will discuss accepting or rejecting this deal as a bench.
 
Anthony_Org said:
Your honor, just a clarifying question. Should I make my plea now or wait until the bench returns?
Click to expand...
You may go ahead and make your plea now if you'd like, thank you.
 
Anthony_Org said:
Correct your honor
Click to expand...
Thank you. In a 2-1 vote, the Supreme Court accepts this plea, with Chief Justice Aladeen22 dissenting. We will now move to sentencing. The Court is in recess pending verdict.
 
In a 2-0-1 decision (Aladeen not present for voting), the Supreme Court issues a writ of mandamus ordering the DHS to give Anthony_Org's criminal record in accordinace to § 5(2)(d) of the Act of Congress - Criminal Code Act so that the Court may do the sentencing factors.
 

Verdict

Associate Justice Smallfries4 writes the unanimous opinion of the Court.

The Commonwealth of Redmont accuses Anthony_Org (“Mr. Org” or “Org”) of two counts of Political Espionage. The first count revolves around the defendant posting seven documents containing what is alleged to be “sensitive political information,” restricted to members and leaders of the Workers’ Party of Redmont (“WPR”). The second count alleges the defendant shared one document restricted to the same. In one public message, the defendant “admit[s he is] too cool for the DoJ to prosecute [him].”


I. Prosecution​

Mr. Org was prosecuted by the Department of Justice on two counts of Political Espionage. Political Espionage is defined by the Criminal Code Act (“CCA”) as the act of gathering, infiltrating, or compromising sensitive political information that has not been released to the public. CCA Part II, § 2. Org was indicted after two incidents where he posted documents in a public discord channel, allegedly sourced from internal WPR channels. These channels were, in one form or another, restricted from the public eye.

The Government initially recommended the full sentence for both counts for a total of 400 penalty units, 120 minutes of imprisonment, and a four month ban from office. Org and the Government reached a plea deal, which we accepted. Mr. Org pleaded no contest to both charges. We find Org guilty on both counts.


II. Sentencing​

The CCA states that when an offense provides for a range of penalties, judicial officers shall have discretion in the application of that range. Id. Part I, § 5(1). Factors to consider are (1) the nature and seriousness of the offence; (2) intent and conduct of the offender; (3) aggravating or mitigating circumstances; (4) criminal history; and (5) protection of the community and deterrence considerations. Id. § 5(2).

The plea deal reached stipulates that the Government shall drop the recommendation of the ban from public office. It should be noted that this recommendation is just that: a recommendation. We are not duty-bound to honor the government’s word here. Though it could be argued that such a deal is a contract between the defendant and the government, the judiciary is not party to it. Should we find that a plea deal is made improperly, such as through corrupt acts, or the provided punishment or terms are outrageously high or low for the offense committed, we may choose to set aside such a deal or the recommendations of the Government.

Here, we fail to make such a determination. When we fail to find that a plea deal is improper in some way, it is necessary—generally speaking—to defer to the Government’s sentencing recommendations for policy reasons. It should be clear that good policy and administrability concerns demand the courts protect and promote plea deals being made when appropriate, to sponsor the more rapid and fair administration of justice. As a result, in the instant case we do not consider a ban from public office in our sentencing.

After a review of the record and the totality of facts, evidence, and circumstances presented, we see little reason to apply the full punishment afforded to us by statute to Org. No previous criminal charge against Org stands out to us as being relevant to increase the penalties against him here. Though this offense is a serious charge, we find the general low public reaction to the offense and lack of resulting harm done to be mitigating circumstances as to the seriousness of the crime. However, the intent seems to have been to conduct some political harm, which is obviously what the crime itself sought to prevent.

Given that the statute grants a wide range to punish with, we find that the appropriate area to sentence given the above is somewhere in the middle. Though the effects were not serious, and there were not any aggravating factors or relevant criminal history, this was a serious charge and the intent and conduct of the offender were obviously pointed towards doing serious political damage, despite the lack of seriousness of the resulting damage. Therefore, we sentence Mr. Org to 100 penalty units and thirty minutes of imprisonment per charge, or 200 penalty units and sixty minutes imprisonment total.

The court thanks all involved for their time.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top