Lawsuit: In Session Commonwealth of Redmont v. AsexualDinosaur [2025] FCR 127

[juniperfig]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION

Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

AsexualDinosaur
Defendant

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

PROSECUTING AUTHORITY REPORT
AsexualDinosaur breached Attorney-Client privilege by releasing legal communications between the Secretary of Commerce and the Department of Justice.

I. PARTIES
1. Commonwealth of Redmont
2. AsexualDinosaur

II. FACTS
1. In response to a warrant obtained by Solicitor General juniperfig, the Staff Team provided evidence showing that AsexualDinosaur is the owner of Anchor Watch News (P-001, P-002, P-003, P-004).
2. On August 18, 2025, AsexualDinosaur was confirmed as a Class A Federal Reserve Board member (P-005).
3. On August 30, 2025, Anchor Watch News released screenshots from the frb-discussion channel (P-006).
4. Other than Staff and bots, only Representatives, Senators, the FRB Governor, and FRB Board members had access to the frb-discussion channel (P-007).
5. The list of Representatives, Senators, the FRB Governor, and FRB Board Members on and around August 30, 2025 is as follows: EATB, jesseya, KattoDE, lcnglazer/Plura72/PluraGlasshouse, Moyfr, Omegabiebel, Sir_Dogeington, smokeyybunnyyy (P-008), RealImza (P-009), Smami (P-010), girlfailcoded (P-011), Bezzergeezer, Pepecuu, Sofia2750 (P-012), xSyncx, DocTheory (P-013), 1950Minecrafter (P-014), SmokedChief/DonTrillions (P-015), inceee (P-016), JediAJMan/Homelander (P-017), AsexualDinosaur (P-005).
6. On November 14, 2025, AsexualDinosaur was employed as a Prosecutor for the Department of Justice (P-018).
7. On November 14, 2025, Anchor Watch News released an article that included a screenshot of Secretary of Commerce ElysiaCrynn speaking in the DOJ-DOC communications channel (P-019, P-020).
8. Other than Staff and bots, only the President, Vice President, Attorney General, Solicitors General, RBI Director, Prosecutors, and those with the "DOC" role are able to access the DOJ-DOC communications channel (P-021).
9. The list of individuals with access to the DOJ-DOC communications channel on and around November 14, 2025 is as follows: Pepecuu (P-022), Eenza (P-023), Kaiserin_ (P-024), juniperfig, Sir_Dogeington (P-025), la_dano_34, Mask3D_Wolf, Multiman155, Nacholebraa, NovaKerbal, AsexualDinosaur, Nyeogmi, Talion77 (P-026, P-027, P-028, P-029, P-030, P-031), ElysiaCrynn (P-032). The RBI Director role was empty (P-033).
10. AsexualDinosaur is the only individual who:
(a) Has a confirmed connection to Anchor Watch News (Fact 1), and
(b) Had access to the frb-discussion channel on and around August 30, 2025 (Fact 5), and
(c) Had access to the DOJ-DOC communications channel on and around November 14, 2025 (Fact 9).
11. The leaked message constituted attorney-client communications, as it involved DOJ legal counsel discussing litigation-related matters with the Department of Commerce.
12. Anchor Watch News is not a registered legal entity with the Department of Commerce (P-034).
13. The Department of Commerce did not give written permission for Anchor Watch News or AsexualDinosaur to release the message published on November 14, 2025 (P-035).
14. On November 27, 2025, the District Court of Redmont identified AsexualDinosaur as the owner/operator of Anchor Watch News (P-036).

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charge against the Defendant:

1. Breaching Attorney Client Privilege
Releasing Attorney-Client communications without written permission is Breaching Attorney Client Privilege under the Criminal Code Act IX(9).
Given that AsexualDinosaur is the only individual who both had access to all leaked sources and owns the entity that published each release (Fact 10), it is more likely than not that he was the individual who disclosed the attorney-client communication at issue.
Because Anchor Watch News is unregistered (Fact 12), its owner may be held personally liable for its actions (Privacy Matters v. Nexalin Part II.B, Paragraph 2 and KingBOB99878 v. truffleboy123).
AsexualDinosaur, as the owner of Anchor Watch News (Fact 1, Fact 12, Fact 14), may be held personally responsible for the actions of Anchor Watch News.
Anchor Watch News released attorney-client communications without written permission (Fact 7, Fact 11, Fact 13).
Therefore, AsexualDinosaur, as the owner of Anchor Watch News, disclosed attorney-client communications without written permission, and should be held liable for this action.

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:

1. 200 Penalty Units, equalling $20,000, for Breaching Attorney Client Privilege.
2. 20 minutes in prison for Breaching Attorney Client Privilege.
3. Disbarment for a period of one month for Breaching Attorney Client Privilege.

V. WITNESSES
1. AsexualDinosaur
2. ElysiaCrynn

VI. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Ticket-25795.pdf

Spoiler: P-004

Spoiler: P-005

Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games

Discord is great for playing games and chilling with friends, or even building a worldwide community. Customize your own space to talk, play, and hang out.

discord.com

Spoiler: P-006

Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games

Discord is great for playing games and chilling with friends, or even building a worldwide community. Customize your own space to talk, play, and hang out.

discord.com

Spoiler: P-007

Spoiler: P-008

https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/house-of-representatives-election-july-2025.26886/

Spoiler: P-009

https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/house-of-representatives-election-july-2025-special.28947/

Spoiler: P-010

https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/house-of-representatives-election-august-2025-special.30792/

Spoiler: P-011

https://www.democracycraft.net/thre...tatives-election-august-2025-special-2.31072/

Spoiler: P-012

https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/senate-election-july-2025.26887/

Spoiler: P-013

https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/senate-election-june-2025-special.26760/

Spoiler: P-014

https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/senate-election-july-2025-special.26913/

Spoiler: P-015

Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games

Discord is great for playing games and chilling with friends, or even building a worldwide community. Customize your own space to talk, play, and hang out.

discord.com

Spoiler: P-016

Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games

Discord is great for playing games and chilling with friends, or even building a worldwide community. Customize your own space to talk, play, and hang out.

discord.com

Spoiler: P-017

Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games

Discord is great for playing games and chilling with friends, or even building a worldwide community. Customize your own space to talk, play, and hang out.

discord.com

Spoiler: P-018

Lawsuit: Adjourned Post in thread 'Inknet v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 86'

Nov 14, 2025

@End

Thank you for being here.

Were you the primary author on the Criminal Code Act?

In your words, What would you say the legislative intent for Conspiracy to Commit a Crime was?

• asexualdinosaur

Spoiler: P-019

Spoiler: P-020

Spoiler: P-021

Spoiler: P-022

Spoiler: P-023

Spoiler: P-024

Spoiler: P-025

Spoiler: P-026

Spoiler: P-027

Spoiler: P-028

Spoiler: P-029

Spoiler: P-030

Spoiler: P-031

Spoiler: P-032

Spoiler: P-033

Spoiler: P-034

https://www.democracycraft.net/forums/company-docket.2135/

Spoiler: STRUCK ITEMS

Spoiler: STRUCK

Spoiler: STRUCK

Lawsuit: Dismissed Post in thread 'ToadKing v. Anchor Watch [2025] DCR 98'

Nov 27, 2025

The Court, having requested Order 2 of the above Court Order be actioned by the Staff Team, enters the following documents received into the record.

Spoiler: Staff-1

See attachment Ticket.pdf

Spoiler: Staff-2

Spoiler: Staff-3

Accordingly, the Court identifies the Owner/Operator of "Anchor Watch" to be @asexualdinosaur.

Magistrate Venne.

• Vennefly

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 27th of November 2025.

 

[Muggy21]

@juniperfig

For the moment, I'll be the PO on this case. A summons will occur within a few days for docket management. If there any emergent motions required, please ping me.

 

[Muggy21]

Writ of Summons

@asexualdinosaur are required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Commonwealth of Redmont v. AsexualDinosaur [2025] FCR 127

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.

Parties are advised that on December 10-14th, 2025 the Federal Court will effectively close for the week due to IRL obligations.

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.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

 

[Muggy21]

View attachment 68279

Adorable.

You have 48 Hours to present a plea.

 

[ko531]

Plea

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
PLEA

Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Asexualdinosaur
Defendant

I. ENTRY OF PLEA
1. Not Guilty to 1 count of Breaching Attorney-Client Privilege

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 3rd day of December 2025

 

[Muggy21]

Thank you,

Discovery now open, 12/8/25 @ 10AM EST.

 

[ko531]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

We ask the court to strike exhibit P-036 as it has no bearing in this case. The exhibit shows a ruling in a civil case that was made based on balance of probabilities. As this is a criminal case with a higher standard of proof, this exhibit does nothing to prove Asexualdinosaur is the owner of Anchor Watch News beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, it is not relevant and should be struck.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - HEARSAY

Exhibit P-035 is an out of court statement trying to be used to prove fact. The exhibit clearly shows the prosecution asking a witness a question. This is circumventing our right to cross examine the witness. It also gives the witness the ability to lie as they are not under oath or under threat of perjury. The person should be called as a witness and give such testimony in court.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE

We ask that exhibit P-003 be resubmitted as at it is clearly some sort of PDF, but it is inaccessible by the defense and most likely the court as all that is showing is the file name "Ticket-25795.pdf".

 

[ko531]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

We ask the court to strike exhibit P-036 as it has no bearing in this case. The exhibit shows a ruling in a civil case that was made based on balance of probabilities. As this is a criminal case with a higher standard of proof, this exhibit does nothing to prove Asexualdinosaur is the owner of Anchor Watch News beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, it is not relevant and should be struck.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - HEARSAY

Exhibit P-035 is an out of court statement trying to be used to prove fact. The exhibit clearly shows the prosecution asking a witness a question. This is circumventing our right to cross examine the witness. It also gives the witness the ability to lie as they are not under oath or under threat of perjury. The person should be called as a witness and give such testimony in court.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE

We ask that exhibit P-003 be resubmitted as at it is clearly some sort of PDF, but it is inaccessible by the defense and most likely the court as all that is showing is the file name "Ticket-25795.pdf".

We retract out objection for improper evidence, we did not see the file at the very bottom of the filing

 

[Muggy21]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - HEARSAY

Exhibit P-035 is an out of court statement trying to be used to prove fact. The exhibit clearly shows the prosecution asking a witness a question. This is circumventing our right to cross examine the witness. It also gives the witness the ability to lie as they are not under oath or under threat of perjury. The person should be called as a witness and give such testimony in court.

Hearsay Objection on P-035 is sustained.

 

[ko531]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

Your Honor,

The prosecution clearly has failed to uphold their duty to disclose in this case now that discovery is over. As seen in exhibit P-004 the warrant they got to acquire the evidence being used against my client was originally denied. Having the entire warrant including why it was originally denied could help our case by possibly putting the warrants validity in question. Without this warrant the prosecution has no case as it would all be fruit of the poisonous tree.

We ask that the commonwealth be compelled to supply the entirety of this warrant.

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

Your Honor,

We ask that the commonwealth but more specifically Juniperfig be held in contempt for this failure to uphold their duty to disclose. This should have been disclosed in discovery but as it hasn't been, the prosecution has now obstructed in the courts administration of its proceedings. Instead of moving on to the next point of this case we are now forced to litigate what should had already been settled in discovery.

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honor,

Commonwealth requests a closed court session to discuss and respond to the motion for sanctions and motion to compel, noting that our response would contain personal information.

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

Your Honor,

We ask that the commonwealth but more specifically Juniperfig be held in contempt for this failure to uphold their duty to disclose. This should have been disclosed in discovery but as it hasn't been, the prosecution has now obstructed in the courts administration of its proceedings. Instead of moving on to the next point of this case we are now forced to litigate what should had already been settled in discovery.

Discussed in closed session, motion dismissed as moot.

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

Your Honor,

The prosecution clearly has failed to uphold their duty to disclose in this case now that discovery is over. As seen in exhibit P-004 the warrant they got to acquire the evidence being used against my client was originally denied. Having the entire warrant including why it was originally denied could help our case by possibly putting the warrants validity in question. Without this warrant the prosecution has no case as it would all be fruit of the poisonous tree.

We ask that the commonwealth be compelled to supply the entirety of this warrant.

Granted. The Commonwealth shall produce the warrant within the timeframe presented.


Discovery extended to 12/13/25 @ 10am EST

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honor,

The Commonwealth introduces the following into evidence pursuant to the motion to compel:

Spoiler: Exhibit P-MC1

 

[Muggy21]

Judge Mug’s Trial Protocol and Rules

Pursuant to Rule 1.2, these shall be the rules herein imposed for this trial. The timeframes listed for each section may be changed on application for an extension.

Extensions are permitted as long as requested during the period in question. Extension requests outside of the period are at the discretion of the Court.

---

Presentation of Witness Questions

1. Each Party must submit all initial questions for his or her witnesses in a single post.
2. All objections to the submitted witness questions must be filed in one consolidated post.
3. Objections are due within fourty-eight (48) hours after the deadline for submitting witness questions.

---

Witness Summonses & Testimony

1. Witnesses shall provide responses as directed by the Court.
2. Any objections to witness testimony must be submitted within fourty-eight (48) hours of the witness's response.

---

Cross Examination

1. Each Party may conduct cross-examination of any opposing witness.
2. Cross-examination questions are due within fourty-eight (48) hours after the witness has responded to direct questioning.
3. Cross-examination questions do not need to be consolidated.
4. Any objections to cross-examination questions are due within twenty-four (24) hours of submission by the Witness.

---

Closing Statement

1. Following the conclusion of all witness testimony and examination, the Court will invite each Party shall submit a Closing Statement.
   • Clearly label any legal arguments (e.g., “1. THEFT IS ILLEGAL” followed by the Party’s reasoning) - This is for the Court's sanity and ease of readability.
2. Plaintiff shall have 72 Hours to submit a Closing Statement. On submission of Plaintiff's statement, Defendant shall immediately have 72 hours to submit a Closing Statement.

---

Motions and Objections After Closing Statements

1. After both Closing Statements have been submitted, either Party may file post-argument motions or objections (e.g., Motion to Reconsider, Objection for Perjury, etc.).
2. The Party must notify the Court of its intent to file such motion or objection within twenty-four (24) hours of the Closing Statements being submitted.
3. Upon advisement from the Court, the Party will have forty-eight (48) hours to submit the requested motion, objection, or brief.

 

[Muggy21]

@juniperfig @ko531 @Franciscus

Opening Statements due on 12/18/25 @ 5pm. (Both Prosectuion and Defense are due at the same time)

 

[ko531]

Your Honor, We have a standing motion to strike on exhibit P-036 and wish for a ruling on the matter

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

We ask the court to strike exhibit P-036 as it has no bearing in this case. The exhibit shows a ruling in a civil case that was made based on balance of probabilities. As this is a criminal case with a higher standard of proof, this exhibit does nothing to prove Asexualdinosaur is the owner of Anchor Watch News beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, it is not relevant and should be struck.

Granted. A civil court proceeding in a fact finding exercise need only find a balance of probabilities to ascertain the validity of a given fact. This Court will not use such information considering the disparity in standards of proof.

 

[Franciscus]

@juniperfig @ko531 @Franciscus

Opening Statements due on 12/18/25 @ 5pm. (Both Prosectuion and Defense are due at the same time)

Your Honor,

Seeing as neither party managed to hit the deadline on this, may we extend the time for opening statements for 24 hours without prejudice to either party?

 

[Muggy21]

Your Honor,

Seeing as neither party managed to hit the deadline on this, may we extend the time for opening statements for 24 hours without prejudice to either party?

Certainly.

@ko531 @juniperfig @Franciscus @asexualdinosaur
Opening Statements due on 12/19/25 @ 9pm EST.

 

[Franciscus]

Opening Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

1. Introduction​

Your Honor and may it please the Court:

This case is, at its core very simple: on 14 November 2025, Defendant and then-State Prosecutor AsexualDinosaur broke attorney-client privilege with his client (the Department of Commerce), resulting in Anchor Watch publishing attorney-client communications without written permission.

At the conclusion of this trial, the evidence and testimony will make proven three simple propositions:

1. A protected attorney-client communication from within government legal channels was publicly disclosed;
2. That disclosure occurred without written permission; and
3. The Defendant is legally responsible for that disclosure: both factually (by unique access and linkage) and legally (through personal liability for an unregistered publishing entity).

2. Governing Law​

The Defendant is charged with Breaching Attorney-Client Privilege, a crime listed within Part IX of the Criminal Code Act. The elements are straightforward:

1. An attorney-client communication exists;
2. The communication was disclosed by the attorney; and
3. There was no written permission authorizing the attorney to make that disclosure.

This Court’s task is therefore element-by-element. The prosecution will present evidence and testimony that map cleanly onto each requirement.

Spoiler: Note on CCA numbering

At the time of the prosecution's initial complaint on 27 November, the crime of Breaching Attorney-Client Privilege was numbered as Part IX(9) within the Criminal Code Act. Following amendments to the CCA caused by the Cheater, Cheater, Pumpkin Eater Act, the numbering of the crime was changed to Part IX(10). Both the substance and name of the crime of Breaching Attorney-Client Privilege remain unchanged since the filing of the criminal complaint.

3. What the evidence will show​

3.1. The communications were attorney-client in character​

The Commonwealth will walk the Court through the publication itself (Exhibit P-019) and the source for the image displayed within the publication (Exhibit P-020; Exhibit P-021). The evidence will show that Anchor Watch leaked a message originating from the DOJ-DOC communications channel and testimony will show that this was concerning legal matters and then-ongoing litigation. That is clearly attorney-client communication (see: DocTheory v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 42, Post No. 110, "The information is protected by attorney-client privilege... as any knowledge... would only be received from communications with the plaintiff and their counsel"; Modern Legal Reform Act 8(4)(a-b); Executive Standards Act 8(1)(a), giving DoJ responsibility of "[d]efending the national legal interest").

3.2 The communications became disclosed to the public​

The Court will see that Anchor Watch did not merely possess the content; it released it. The Commonwealth’s evidence identifies the public-facing post and the leaked content as the vehicle of public disclosure, again through P-019.

3.3 There was no written permission for the disclosure​

The Commonwealth will further invite the testimony of ElysiaCrynn, the Secretary of Commerce, in order to demonstrate that the Department of Commerce did not give written permission for Anchor Watch or the Defendant to release the message published on November 14, 2025. This satisfies the "without written permission" element in the language of the offense itself.

3.4 The Defendant was responsible for the disclosure to the public​

The Commonwealth will prove the defendant's responsibility for the disclosure of the attorney-client communications through examining ownership of Anchor Watch, unique access to the channels from which Anchor Watch obtained material, and precedent regarding legal attribution of actions for non-registered companies.

3.4.1 The Defendant operates Anchor Watch​

The Commonwealth will prove the Defendant's registration and ownership of Anchor Watch to the Court through Exhibits P-MC1, P-001, P-002, and P-003.

3.4.2 The Defendant had unique access to channels from which messages were leaked by Anchor Watch​

The Commonwealth will show, through Exhibits P-018 and P-021 through P-033, that the Defendant had access to the DOJ-DOC communications channel on and around November 14, 2025. The Commonwealth will also show that previous communications between the Congress and the Federal Reserve Bank were leaked by Anchor Watch on 30 August, and that the Defendant had access then (Exhbits P-005 through P-017).
The Commonwealth will thus establish that the Defendant is the only individual who simultaneously (a) has a confirmed connection to Anchor Watch and (b) had access to the relevant government channels associated with Anchor Watch’s leaks, providing further evidence that the Defendant himself was the discloser.

3.4.3 Owners of unregistered firms are liable for such a firm's actions​

The evidence, supplemented by testimony from Secretary of Commerce ElysiaCrynn, will show Anchor Watch News is not registered as a legal entity with the Department of Commerce (P-034). Under existing precedent, when an individual acts "on behalf of" a non-existent/defunct or improperly registered company, the individual is held personally liable for the entity’s actions for the very reason that failure to register a business would otherwise impair accountability (see: Privacy Matters v. Nexalin [2025] FCR 36, Post No. 111, Section 2(B) par. 2).

4. Conclusion​

Your Honor, this is a narrow prosecution with a narrow theory: a protected legal communication was disclosed publicly without written permission, and the evidence will connect that disclosure to the Defendant both factually and legally.

At the close of evidence, the Commonwealth will ask the Court to find that the elements of Breaching Attorney-Client Privilege are satisfied on the record and to accordingly find the defendant guilty.

 

[ko531]

Opening Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

The prosecution of Asexualdino requires a lot of loops to be jumped through. Many of which are founded in speculation and not concrete evidene. This case realizes so much on speculation that it under no circumstances should meet the threshold of beyond a reasonable doubt

First is the owner of Anchor Watch. Asexualdinosaur may have registered the company but there is no proof that he runs or operates it. Anyone could be running the company and anyone could be sourcing that company its information.

Next is Whistleblower protection. Whoever is leaking this information has whistleblower protection. Under the Whistleblower Act a whistleblower is anyone who gives information to another individual or organization about an entity or individual who is involved with any activity that is deemed illegal, illicit, unsafe, or a waste, fraud, or abuse of taxpayer funds. As the related information that is the subject of the prosecution has to deal with using tax payer funds to cover half the Tex Bonds, the information released would be protected by Whistleblower.

It is also important to point out that in the Classified Materials Act as extra sipulations to Whistleblower protection all of which are also meet. The information serves the public good, no internal route existed to report the concerns and no personal or political gain was recieved in releasing the information.

At the end of the day this case breaks down to circumstantual evidence on whistleblower protected actions. No proof of Asexualdino operating Anchor News exists. No evidence of Asexualdinosaur directly being the leak exists. What you have is a role that a dozen other people had and an assumption that all the leaked information from Anchor News came from a single source and not multiple. This by no means should be enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Muggy21]

@ko531 @Franciscus @juniperfig @asexualdinosaur

Thanks for your Opening Statements.


The Commonwealth has until 12/21/25 @ 9pm EST to present Witness Questions.
Objections to those questions will be due on 12/23/25 @ 9pm EST.



Defense will have the opportunity to cross-examine Government witnesses after direct examination by the Government.



The Court reminds defendant that he has a right to remain silent and that any answer he gives in testimony may be used against him.

 

[Franciscus]

Presentation of Witness Questions

1. Each Party must submit all initial questions for his or her witnesses in a single post.

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor,

We seek testimony from two witnesses: ElysiaCrynn and AsexualDinosaur. Notwithstanding whether or not AsexualDinosaur chooses to testify or not to testify, our planned questioning of ElysiaCrynn would require us to ask several questions to form a foundation for the rest of our questioning. In other words, we would first seek to ask the witness about her various roles, and various questions that would establish her competence, before we would move to ask further questions exploring her knowledge.

Forcing us to put the initial questions to a witness in one post would interrupt this flow. And, in the case that we have such a small number of witnesses as we do in this case, we don't think that back-and-forth will add to confusion. As such, we ask the Court to reconsider this requirement in order to allow for more back-and-forth flow during witness questioning. We understand that this is a standard rule of yours, but we ask that it be suspended in this case to permit something more similar to the amount of back-and-forth we may get in verbal questioning.

Separately, we understand that the second witness may choose to not answer questions in testimony. We ask that the Court confirm whether or not the witness intends to invoke this right before we submit a question list, as it would affect our questioning (in particular, to whom we would ask certain questions).

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor,

We seek testimony from two witnesses: ElysiaCrynn and AsexualDinosaur. Notwithstanding whether or not AsexualDinosaur chooses to testify or not to testify, our planned questioning of ElysiaCrynn would require us to ask several questions to form a foundation for the rest of our questioning. In other words, we would first seek to ask the witness about her various roles, and various questions that would establish her competence, before we would move to ask further questions exploring her knowledge.

Forcing us to put the initial questions to a witness in one post would interrupt this flow. And, in the case that we have such a small number of witnesses as we do in this case, we don't think that back-and-forth will add to confusion. As such, we ask the Court to reconsider this requirement in order to allow for more back-and-forth flow during witness questioning. We understand that this is a standard rule of yours, but we ask that it be suspended in this case to permit something more similar to the amount of back-and-forth we may get in verbal questioning.

Separately, we understand that the second witness may choose to not answer questions in testimony. We ask that the Court confirm whether or not the witness intends to invoke this right before we submit a question list, as it would affect our questioning (in particular, to whom we would ask certain questions).

Received and granted.

I'll summon ElysiaCrynn and you'll ask questions on direct examination in the manner you describe.

@ko531 @asexualdinosaur Do you wish to testify? @Franciscus If they answer in the affirmative, you may proceed in questioning the witness, otherwise you wont.

Objections to Questions/Answers will still be due within 48 Hours for the Defense.

 

[Muggy21]

Writ of Summons

@ElysiaCrynn is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Commonwealth v. AsexualDinosaur

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.

 

[ElysiaCrynn]

Present, your Honour.

 

[ko531]

Received and granted.

I'll summon ElysiaCrynn and you'll ask questions on direct examination in the manner you describe.

@ko531 @asexualdinosaur Do you wish to testify? @Franciscus If they answer in the affirmative, you may proceed in questioning the witness, otherwise you wont.

Objections to Questions/Answers will still be due within 48 Hours for the Defense.

Asexualdinosaur is willing to testify but reserves the right to plead the fifth to any individual questions

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honor,

Prosecution requests a sidebar to discuss procedure.