Lawsuit: Adjourned 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.

 

[Muggy21]

@Dogeington

You have 48 Hours to begin questioning Witness ElysiaCrynn.

 

[Dogeington]

@ElysiaCrynn

1. What positions do you hold in government and as staff?

 

[ko531]

@ElysiaCrynn

1. What positions do you hold in government and as staff?

Objection

OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

What does their staff position have to do with this case about accused violation of attorney-client privilege? From the current look there seems to be no reason for this line of questioning

Objection

OBJECTION - COMPOUND QUESTION

This question includes multiple inquires and should be split into two seperate questions if the first objection is overruled

 

[Dogeington]

Objection

OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

What does their staff position have to do with this case about accused violation of attorney-client privilege? From the current look there seems to be no reason for this line of questioning

Objection

OBJECTION - COMPOUND QUESTION

This question includes multiple inquires and should be split into two seperate questions if the first objection is overruled

I am trying to establish the witness’s qualifications before I continue with my line of questioning.

The second objection is fully founded, and I apologize to the court for improper procedure. Let me restate the questions here, and I ask that the previous question be stricken from the record.

@ElysiaCrynn

1. What positions do you hold in the government of the Commonwealth of Readmont?
2. What position do you hold in DC staff?

 

[ko531]

I am trying to establish the witness’s qualifications before I continue with my line of questioning.

The second objection is fully founded, and I apologize to the court for improper procedure. Let me restate the questions here, and I ask that the previous question be stricken from the record.

@ElysiaCrynn

1. What positions do you hold in the government of the Commonwealth of Readmont?
2. What position do you hold in DC staff?

Objection

OBJECTION - INCOMPETENT

If the prosecution wanted a staff member to testify about a staff action, they should have had Staff be summoned as a witness and not a witness who is also a part of the staff team.

Objection

OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

They still fail to make any connection on why is staff needs to speak on a crime that did not involve them beside granting the warrant which isnt crime or case specific.

 

[Dogeington]

Objection

OBJECTION - INCOMPETENT

If the prosecution wanted a staff member to testify about a staff action, they should have had Staff be summoned as a witness and not a witness who is also a part of the staff team.

Objection

OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

They still fail to make any connection on why is staff needs to speak on a crime that did not involve them beside granting the warrant which isnt crime or case specific.

The Commonwealth waives its right ususally granted in Mug courtrooms to respond to these objections as it feels there is nothing to be said which it has not already stated, and wishes for the presiding officer to rule on them.

 

[Muggy21]

Objection

OBJECTION - INCOMPETENT

If the prosecution wanted a staff member to testify about a staff action, they should have had Staff be summoned as a witness and not a witness who is also a part of the staff team.

Objection

OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

They still fail to make any connection on why is staff needs to speak on a crime that did not involve them beside granting the warrant which isnt crime or case specific.

QUESTION || OBJECTION || RULING

Q2 | INCOMPETENT | Sustained. The Court knows ElysiaCrynn is a Moderator, this is public knowledge. However, ElysiaCrynn may only personally appear in her Govt roles, if the CW wanted Staff input, the CW should've added Staff as a witness.

Q1 wasn't objected to.

 

[ElysiaCrynn]

1. Currently I hold the positions of:
- Secretary of the Department of Commerce
- Congressional Clerk
- Compliance Officer
- Ranger
- Economist
- Doctor

 

[Dogeington]

1. Currently I hold the positions of:
- Secretary of the Department of Commerce
- Congressional Clerk
- Compliance Officer
- Ranger
- Economist
- Doctor

2. In your capacity as DoC Secretary, what is the legal liability of a news organization considering its status as a legal entity?


3. In your capacity as DoC Secretary, what was the significance of the information leaked by anchor watch news?

 

[ElysiaCrynn]

2. A news organisation unless it has a respective explicit business in-game is not considered to be a legal entity and thus an individual acting on behalf of such a non-existent company can be said to be personally liable for the actions of said organisation in accordance with case law: Privacy Matters v. Nexalin [2025] FCR 36 and KingBOB99878 v. truffleboy123 [2025] FCR 104.

3. The information was regarding planned SOWF payments to holders of TEX bonds (as well as indirectly payments to depositors at institutions covered by SOWF), this was particularly sensitive information as it was relevant to and concerning two cases the Commonwealth was in active litigation over (both regarding the pay-outs of the TEX bonds - Gribble19 v. The Exchange Inc [2025] FCR 102 and Vendeka Inc. and Pepecuu v. Department of Commerce [2025] FCR 107).

 

[Dogeington]

2. A news organisation unless it has a respective explicit business in-game is not considered to be a legal entity and thus an individual acting on behalf of such a non-existent company can be said to be personally liable for the actions of said organisation in accordance with case law: Privacy Matters v. Nexalin [2025] FCR 36 and KingBOB99878 v. truffleboy123 [2025] FCR 104.

3. The information was regarding planned SOWF payments to holders of TEX bonds (as well as indirectly payments to depositors at institutions covered by SOWF), this was particularly sensitive information as it was relevant to and concerning two cases the Commonwealth was in active litigation over (both regarding the pay-outs of the TEX bonds - Gribble19 v. The Exchange Inc [2025] FCR 102 and Vendeka Inc. and Pepecuu v. Department of Commerce [2025] FCR 107).

4. What is your relationship like with the DOJ as DOC Secretary?


5. Were you surprised by the leak?


6. Was AsexualDinosaur present in the DOC internal DOJ channel as a part of the DOC’s legal counsel?


7. As DOC Secretary, how did the leak affect your trust in the DOJ?

 

[ElysiaCrynn]

4. My relationship is overall rather positive with the DOJ, they've assisted me on a number of matters, being there to act as legal counsel when I need them and work together in investigation and prosecution of financial crimes.

5. Yes, I was surprised, I was not anticipating this information to be leaked and thought that my conversations with the DOJ were private matters.

6. They were.

7. It decreased my trust in the department and made me more hesitant to rely on the DOJ.

 

[Dogeington]

4. My relationship is overall rather positive with the DOJ, they've assisted me on a number of matters, being there to act as legal counsel when I need them and work together in investigation and prosecution of financial crimes.

5. Yes, I was surprised, I was not anticipating this information to be leaked and thought that my conversations with the DOJ were private matters.

6. They were.

7. It decreased my trust in the department and made me more hesitant to rely on the DOJ.

8. If people have concerns about DOC policy, are there routes to report their concerns?

9. What about internally, are there intergovernmental channels where such concerns could be reported?

10. Did AsexualDinosaur use any of those routes to report his concerns about the policy which was later leaked?

 

[ko531]

8. If people have concerns about DOC policy, are there routes to report their concerns?

9. What about internally, are there intergovernmental channels where such concerns could be reported?

10. Did AsexualDinosaur use any of those routes to report his concerns about the policy which was later leaked?

Objection

OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

Asexualdinosaur is not an employee of the DOC and any internal routes the DOC would have to address concerns would not apply to Asexualdinosaur. All three questions should be struck

 

[Dogeington]

Objection

OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

Asexualdinosaur is not an employee of the DOC and any internal routes the DOC would have to address concerns would not apply to Asexualdinosaur. All three questions should be struck

AsexualDinosaur is a citizen of the commonwealth of Redmont and, at the time, was an employee of the commonwealth. This line of questioning is attempting to establish that as a citizen and public servant there were many channels available to him should he have had any concerns over DOC policy.

 

[ElysiaCrynn]

8. Yes there are many, they may open a DOC support ticket, discuss the issue directly in DMs with me or other DOC employees. They may also go to the president who oversees us if needs be.

9. Concerns held by DOJ employees could have discussed intergovernmentally with me in the DOC-DOJ communication channel the leaked message was sent in or likewise with the president again who could discuss the issue with me.

10. To my knowledge they did not, if they did go to a third party, the concerns were not passed onto me.

 

[Dogeington]

Thank you. No more questions you honor

 

[Muggy21]

Objection

OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

Asexualdinosaur is not an employee of the DOC and any internal routes the DOC would have to address concerns would not apply to Asexualdinosaur. All three questions should be struck

Overruled.
AsexualDinosaur is not an employee of the DOC, but that alone doesn't render the questioning irrelevant. This line of questioning is aimed at determining whether those avenues were used before the policy was leaked, which is plainly relevant.

 

[Muggy21]

@Dogeington You may proceed on direct examination of AsexualDinosaur.

 

[Dogeington]

@Dogeington You may proceed on direct examination of AsexualDinosaur.

The Commonwealth has decided against questioning this witness, Your Honor.

 

[Muggy21]

@ko531

Prosecution rests on direction examination of witnesses.

Please proceed in cross-examination of ElysiaCrynn.

 

[ko531]

@ko531

Prosecution rests on direction examination of witnesses.

Please proceed in cross-examination of ElysiaCrynn.

We have no questions your honor

 

[Muggy21]

Seeing no other witnesses, the Court will proceeding to invite parties to present Closing Statements.

@Dogeington The Commonwealth has until Jan 10th, 2025 at 9pm EST.
@ko531 You'll have three days after CW's submission to present your Closing Statement.

 

[ko531]

Motion

MOTION TO DISMISS - LACK OF CLAIM

The Commonwealth has failed to prove or provide evidence that the crime allege even occured. The only crime being alleged is Breaching Attorney-Client Privilege which under Part IX section 10 of the CCA it is defined as:

"discloses attorney-client communications without written permission."

The commonwealth in all their evidence submitted and in all of their witness questioning never established that written permission was not given for the release of the information. Without this critical piece of the crime as established in its definition, their is no evidence that the crime has even been committed. Therefore this case must be dismissed for lack of claim.

We ask the court to dismiss this case with prejudice as to avoid prosecutorial retaliation by a refiling of this case which would result in the wasting of even more of the defendants time for the prosecutions failures.

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

MOTION TO DISMISS - LACK OF CLAIM

The Commonwealth has failed to prove or provide evidence that the crime allege even occured. The only crime being alleged is Breaching Attorney-Client Privilege which under Part IX section 10 of the CCA it is defined as:

"discloses attorney-client communications without written permission."

The commonwealth in all their evidence submitted and in all of their witness questioning never established that written permission was not given for the release of the information. Without this critical piece of the crime as established in its definition, their is no evidence that the crime has even been committed. Therefore this case must be dismissed for lack of claim.

We ask the court to dismiss this case with prejudice as to avoid prosecutorial retaliation by a refiling of this case which would result in the wasting of even more of the defendants time for the prosecutions failures.

@Dogeington You have until 1/9/26 @ 9pm EST to respond.

Deadlines for Closing Statements are void pending this motion.

 

[Dogeington]

Motion

MOTION TO DISMISS - LACK OF CLAIM

The Commonwealth has failed to prove or provide evidence that the crime allege even occured. The only crime being alleged is Breaching Attorney-Client Privilege which under Part IX section 10 of the CCA it is defined as:

"discloses attorney-client communications without written permission."

The commonwealth in all their evidence submitted and in all of their witness questioning never established that written permission was not given for the release of the information. Without this critical piece of the crime as established in its definition, their is no evidence that the crime has even been committed. Therefore this case must be dismissed for lack of claim.

We ask the court to dismiss this case with prejudice as to avoid prosecutorial retaliation by a refiling of this case which would result in the wasting of even more of the defendants time for the prosecutions failures.

Objection

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

Persuant to rule 5.2, Motions to dismiss citing Rule 5.5 must be submitted before the beginning of witness testimony. Seeing as witness testimony has concluded, this motion is invalid.

 

[Muggy21]

Objection

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

Persuant to rule 5.2, Motions to dismiss citing Rule 5.5 must be submitted before the beginning of witness testimony. Seeing as witness testimony has concluded, this motion is invalid.

Sustained, Defense Motion struck as improper.

 

[Muggy21]

Seeing no other witnesses, the Court will proceeding to invite parties to present Closing Statements.

@Dogeington The Commonwealth has until Jan 10th, 2025 at 9pm EST.
@ko531 You'll have three days after CW's submission to present your Closing Statement.

These deadlines are back in effect.

 

[ko531]

Sustained, Defense Motion struck as improper.

Motion

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

This type of motion was impossible to file any earlier due to witness questioning still needing to be done to establish evidence. We feel this motion should still be heard for this reason. Such a motion dealing with the lack of claim for a criminal prosecution is a big deal and shouldnt be tossed for the procedural issue. If such procedure were to be followed would have been erroneous and would have harmed my client by indirectly telling the prosecution what questions to ask their witness.

This ruling would also directly make motions to dismiss for lack of claim almost impossible if witnesses were called which defeats the entire purpose of such a motion. We filed this motion as soon all the evidence had been established and therefore believe the court should apply Rule 1.2 of the Court Rules and Procedure with their ability to apply the rules how they see fit.

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

This type of motion was impossible to file any earlier due to witness questioning still needing to be done to establish evidence. We feel this motion should still be heard for this reason. Such a motion dealing with the lack of claim for a criminal prosecution is a big deal and shouldnt be tossed for the procedural issue. If such procedure were to be followed would have been erroneous and would have harmed my client by indirectly telling the prosecution what questions to ask their witness.

This ruling would also directly make motions to dismiss for lack of claim almost impossible if witnesses were called which defeats the entire purpose of such a motion. We filed this motion as soon all the evidence had been established and therefore believe the court should apply Rule 1.2 of the Court Rules and Procedure with their ability to apply the rules how they see fit.

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order - Reconsideration of striking of Motion to Dismiss

DENIED.

It would be highly irregular and unfair to the Prosecution to amend a Court Rule, at least attempt to under Rule 1.2, with insufficent timing. The Defense is not harmed by striking of their motion. If they believe thier argument to be meritorious, they are more than welcome to include it in their Closing Argument.

Furthermore, a Lack of Claim is only on the efficacy and sensibility of a legal argument, not a determination of burden from fact-finding. Essentially, there must be a cognizable non-de minimis legal argument. In this case, the Commonwealth has competently alleged a potential violation of the Criminal Code Act. Whether or not a particular fact was not developed is not relevant for determining the existence of a valid claim.


So ordered,
Judge Mug

 

[Dogeington]

These deadlines are back in effect.

Your Honor, I would like to request a 24 hour extension to this deadline

 

[Muggy21]

Your Honor, I would like to request a 24 hour extension to this deadline

Granted

 

[Dogeington]

Closing Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honor, and may it please the Court,
The case before you today, while wearing the veneer of complexity, is in actuality a very straightforward one. The Defendant, AsexualDinosaur, during the time he was a state prosecutor, used his position to gain and then subsequently leak information that he obtained due to the attorney-client relationship between the DOJ and DOC.

On the Leaked Material
The Executive Standards Act gives the DOJ the responsibility of defending the national legal interest. Through this provision, the DOJ offers legal counsel to each government department, primarily through channels in the DOJ server. These communications have been deemed privileged by prior case law (DocTheory v. Commonwealth of Redmont). Therefore, any breach of information within those channels, without written consent, is a breach of attorney-client privilege. The Anchor Watch News organization released a screenshot on 11/14/2025 of a message sent by ElysiaCrynn within that DOJ-DOC chat. This message was not authorized for public disclosure. It is without a doubt that whoever leaked that message to Anchor Watch committed a breach of attorney-client privilege.

On Channel Access
As a state prosecutor, and as confirmed by ElysiaCrynn’s testimony, the Defendant had access to the internal attorney-client chats between the DOJ and DOC. There are many people within the internal DOJ-DOC channel (p021–p033) who had access to that message at the time of the leak. The Defense will no doubt argue that the Commonwealth cannot prove that AsexualDinosaur is any more likely to have been the one to leak those messages than any of the other members. However, none of the government employees who had access to that chat have any ties to Anchor Watch. AsexualDinosaur is the exception to this rule. As shown in the staff ticket (p001–p004), AsexualDinosaur is the owner of Anchor Watch News. This evidence is undeniable and information from staff is to be taken at its word. No evidence to prove the contrary or shed doubt on its validity has been submitted, nor has any witness testimony proved the opposite.
Earlier in the year, on 8/30/25, Anchor Watch published an article with screenshots from the frb-discussion channel (P-006). At that time, AsexualDinosaur was an FRB board member and had access to those chats. Looking at the lists of who else had access to the frb-discussion channel, and comparing that list of names with who had access to the DOJ-DOC chats (Fact 5 - Fact 9), three names appear on both lists: Pepecuu, Sir_Dogeington, and AsexualDinosaur. The Anchor Watch article painted Pepecuu in a very negative light, so it is highly doubtful that Pepe leaked that information, and while there may be a coincidental link to yours truly, it is damning evidence that the owner of Anchor Watch News appears on both lists.

On Whistleblower Protections
The Defense, in its opening statement, claims that the leaked message would be protected under the Whistleblower Act and the Classified Materials Act. While the Whistleblower Act is immensely broad in its definition of a protected class, it is unclear if whistleblower protections would extend to attorney-client protected information. The act states that the government broadly may not punish whistleblowers, but the CCA, where breach of attorney-client privilege is codified, containsa supremacy clause stating that if any act is in contradiction with it, then the CCA shall prevail. While it is unclear how exactly these two acts interact, the presumption that whistleblower protections can prevent a legal prosecution despite the CCA’s supremacy clause certainly is not self-evident. Even if this conflict did not exist, the Whistleblower Act is specific in its protections: the information shared must be in relation to an activity that is “deemed illegal, illicit, unsafe, or a waste, fraud, or abuse of taxpayer funds.” While the leaked information does in fact relate to taxpayer funds, it is in relation to a fully legal function of the DOC. The True Economic Redemption Act in § 5.8 states that “(8) The SOWF is allowed to decide how much of deposits post-liquidation of assets will be covered by the facility. Deposits not covered by insurance, liquidation, or this additional funding will be considered unrecoverable and cannot be pursued by depositors.” It is abundantly clear in law that the SOWF, and by extension the DOC, may decide how much of deposits will be covered by the SOWF. The function that was being undertaken was fully legal and the release of the information thereof was not protected by the Whistleblower Act.
The Classified Materials Act further expands whistleblower protections to include, “(8) An individual who discloses classified material without authorization may claim protection as a whistleblower under the Whistleblowers Act (or subsequent similar Act) where all of the following apply: (a) The disclosure served a clear and compelling public interest; (b) No effective or reasonable internal route existed for raising the concern, or when this route was used, no significant action was taken; and (c) The individual acted in good faith and not for personal or political gain.” The Commonwealth notes that the Defendant is not on trial for Breach of Integrity, but rather Breach of Attorney Client Privilege. The Classified Materials Act specifically states that “An individual who discloses classified material without authorization may claim protection,” therefore the CMA is immaterial to this case. Furthermore, even under this expanded definition, the Defendant still does not meet whistleblower protections. While it could be argued that the information served a clear and compelling public interest, as established in the testimony of ElysiaCrynn, the internal routes that existed for raising concern about said material were not used, disqualifying it from protection.

On Anchor Watch
As established by p034, Anchor Watch News is not a registered legal entity with the DOC. The only mention of Anchor Watch as an entity within the DC server is AsexualDinosaur’s registration to use the Anchor Watch server for posting in #news. The defense, in their opening statement, asserts that “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.” The defense mistakenly asserts that Anchor Watch News is a company, but under the LEA it does not have any protections associated with incorporated or LLC status and must be assumed to be a sole proprietorship – if even that, as sole proprietorships refer to those companies with in-game firms. Therefore, in the eyes of Redmontian law, Anchor Watch is no more than a pseudonym for AsexualDinosaur.

On Written Permission
Finally, the Commonwealth will address the supposed issue brought up by the Defense in their erroneous Motion to Dismiss. The Defense alleges that the prosecution has not established that the information leaked by Anchor Watch News was not given written permission to be shared. However, the Commonwealth’s questioning does, in fact, prove this not to be the case. In question 5, the Commonwealth asks ElysiaCrynn, “Were you surprised by the leak?” The answer to this question reveals that a leak did in fact take place, as Elysia affirms by saying, “Yes, I was surprised. I was not anticipating this information to be leaked and thought that my conversations with the DOJ were private matters.” A leak in government information is necessarily nonconsensual. This is further affirmed in the context of the answer, as Elysia testified that she presupposed that DOJ-DOC conversations were private. Should the dissemination of the information have been consensual, there is no way in which Elysia could have been surprised, as she alone could have provided consent for her message to be shared.

In conclusion, it should be clear to the Court that the leaked materials were, in fact, attorney-client privileged. The Defendant had access to the chat from which they were leaked, the leaked message did not constitute whistleblower protected material, Anchor Watch is owned by the Defendant, and written permission was not given for the release of the information. It is beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant, using their privileged position, gathered the information in question and then, using the news organization he owns, published an article publicly breaching attorney-client privilege. While the Defense may cast vague assertions that any one of the members of that chat could have leaked the message, the fact that the Defendant is the owner of the news organization through which it was published and also has demonstrated a pattern of behavior of leaking information through this news organization provides more than enough evidence to prove that the Defendant committed the leak. In order to avoid conviction, the Defense must provide reasonable doubt, not simply any doubt at all. An unfounded assertion that it “could have been anyone,” despite the fact that there is only one person with the character, motivation, means, and record to have done this, is not a reasonable doubt. We hope to have proven through the evidence and argumentation presented to the Court that the only logical explanation for who committed the leak must have been the Defendant. The Commonwealth clearly meets this definition and urges the Court to ensure that justice is served.

 

[ko531]

Closing Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

The case before us alleges breach of attorney client privilege. This means the case before us is a criminal prosecution and has a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet the case made by the prosecution under no measure reaches this standard. Their evidence is all circumstantial and their arguements makes mental leaps to fill the holes left by their evidence. Some of these mental leaps are so great that it requires one to even prove the allege crime occured.

The Leak
How did this information make it to Anchor Watch News? The prosecution wants us to think that it was the plaintiff for two reasons. The first is that he registered Anchor Watch News. The second is he had access to the chat. Neither of these facts are crimes. They did not prove ownership of Anchor Watch News to Asexualdinosaur and they have no evidence showing the leak was him. Anyone who had access to that chat had the ability to leak it to the owner of Anchor Watch News. It is not proven that these two people are the same. All the prosecution has for the leak is the fact that Dino had the ability to do the alleged crime along with every other person with access. Nothing in their evidence points the leak directly to Asexualdinosaur.

The Elements of the Crime
For breach of Attorney Client Privillege there are two main elements. First is the disclosure of attorney client communication. The second is without written approval. The prosecution fails to prove the second element of the crime. All they had to do was ask their witness a single question of "Did you give written approval for the release of these communications?" The commonwealth failed to ask this question. Instead the commonwealth argues that the answer to a heavily leading question implies that written communication was not given. The question of "Were you surprised by the leak?" and the witness's referal to such events as a leak. The question leads the witness to refer to such events as a leak when that has yet to be established with the question of written approval still in the air. The witness refers to the events in the same manner as the question and therefore can not be completely viewed as the witness calling the article by Anchor Watch News a leak unprompted.

This is again is a mental leap that should not exist when trying to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. How can you convict to this standard when the crime itself has not been proven to 100% certainty let alone the fact that the plaintiff is the one to commit said crime.

Whistleblower
The prosecution makes the argument for us on this matter. They stated in their closing statement "The Classified Materials Act specifically states that “An individual who discloses classified material without authorization may claim protection,” therefore the CMA is immaterial to this case." The prosecution state the information is not classified and the CMA only sets thes requirements on the release of classified information therefore the act is moot. This only expands the whistleblower protections to only the requirements set in the Whistleblower Act.

The requirements for Whistleblower in this act states "(1) A whistleblower is an entity or individual that presents 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." The information released was about taxpayer funds and to the person who released it, it may be seen as unsafe or a waste of those funds.

As this is now the only requirement which is now only extremely broad but also met, the act is protected under whistleblower for whoever released the information. The commonwealth does go on to say that the protections are void as "the internal routes that existed for raising concern about said material were not used, disqualifying it from protection." Yet this is confusing and contradictory as this requirement is only set in the CMA which they themselves called "immaterial." This means the commonwealth argues themselves that the whistleblower protections are therefore not void.

Character, Motivation and Means
The commonwealth at the very end of their closing makes the statement "An unfounded assertion that it “could have been anyone,” despite the fact that there is only one person with the character, motivation, means, and record to have done this, is not a reasonable doubt." This is a bold but yet untrue statement by the prosection. The prosecution under these three qualifiers have only proven maybe one and that was means. They have not in any of their arguments proven motive or character or even addressed it. We are also not saying that it could have been anyone as allege. We are saying they have failed to prove that it couldnt have been anyone. All they show and argue are circumstantial evidence only proving the means to some degree. They never address character or the motive as to why Asexualdinosaur was the person who leaked it. T

Conclusion
To wrap this up, the only part of the crime that has been proven to some degree is means and even that is circumstantial. They only prove that Asexualdinsaur had the ability to commit such crime but that does not make one guilty. Every gun owner is not guilty of a gun death because they had the means to do it. They failed in their own admission to prove two of the three qualifers to prevent reasonable doubt. They failed to prove any motivation from Asexualdinosaur to commit the crime or show that Asexualdinosaurs character would lead him to commit the crime. This is all to even say if the crime did occur which they failed to proven concretely with their botch of their witness testmony and the potential whisleblower protections. This is not to the standard of reasonable doubt. If any of their circumstantial evidence is wrong(owner of Anchor Watch News or Leaking it to Anchor Watch), Asexualdinosaur is innocent.

 

[Muggy21]

The verdict has been rendered in this case and sent to parties via book.

I'll post the text to this thread tomorrow. (doing it for the RP )

 

[Muggy21]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Verdict - Commonwealth of Redmont v. AsexualDinosaur [2025] FCR 127

Summary of Prosecution
The Commonwealth charges AsexualDinosaur for Bearch of Attorney-Client Privilege as defined in the Criminal Code Act. As alleged by the Commonwealth, the following breach occurred, summarized.

At some point between August 2025 and November 14th, 2025, AsexualDinosaur had access to material(s) that were considered confidential and classified under statute. With this access, he leaked material from a DOJ-DOC chat that contained attorney-client work product. In leaking the material, he violated the Criminal Code Act, Breaching Attorney Client Privilege. As this is a criminal proceeding, the burden of proof lays on the Commonwealth to prove the allegations at hand beyond a reasonable doubt.

Opinion of the Court

The Court acknowledges the extensive briefing and evidence presented by the Commonwealth and proceeds in analysis of the fundamental offense being alleged. In order for an Attorney to commit a Breach of Attorney-Client privilege, one must prove the following aspects:

1. The material in question was privileged. (In this circumstance, this has been established extensively.)
2. The attorney must improperly disclose the material. (This is the issue that the Court sees with the current circumstance).

Under a civil preponderance standard, more likely than not, the Court would agree with the Commonwealth that AsexualDinosaur is 1) the Owner of Anchor Watch, 2) that Anchor Watch did leak the material in question, and 3) that all parties (Defendant and Anchor Watch) lacked permission to release the materials in question. (Defense's assertion that permission for release is not well accepted. Privileged material requires an affirmative release, no such release was demonstrated.) The material in question, involves intra-government classified material where DoJ attorneys provided legal advice to the Government, thus an attorney-client relationship is presumed and substantiated. Lastly, the material was released (P-019 and P-020).

Thus, the only concerning point of contention is the CW's attempt to conflate Anchor Watch as a solo-prop, where the Owner would be personally liable. As discussed in Privacy Matters Collective (Class Action Group Represented by Mezimori) v. Nexalin, [2025] FCR 36, an Owner of solo-prop business may be personally liable for the activities of the business. Further, as defined under the Legal Entity Act, a solo-prop may "engage in any lawful act or activity for which Corporations may be organized under the Laws of Redmont." Under this Court's interpretation of the CW's argument, since Anchor Watch and AsexualDinosaur are legally-speaking the same person, the actions of Anchor Watch are synonymous with the actions of AsexualDinosaur, thus the illegal act of the solo-prop is the illegal act of the natural person.

Accordingly, for the charge to stand, the CW must demonstrate that the actor who allegedly disclosed the privileged material was an attorney bound by the duties imposed by the Criminal Code Act. Anchor Watch, as a solo prop engaged in journalistic activity, is not itself an attorney and therefore cannot, as a matter of law, breach attorney-client privilege. While a solo proprietorship may be legally indistinguishable from its owner for purposes of civil liability, that principle does not convert the business entity into a licensed legal professional. The statute at issue criminalizes improper disclosure by an attorney, not the downstream publication of privileged material by a media outlet. The Commonwealth therefore bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that AsexualDinosaur personally acted in the capacity of an attorney when the disclosure occurred. On the record before the Court, that burden has not been met.

The Court cannot infer criminal guilt solely from the fact that the Defendant owns or controls the newspaper through which the material was published. Criminal liability requires evidence of a definitive act undertaken by the Defendant personally, not mere association or ownership. The Court takes judicial notice that, upon application to Staff, an invite link is available for staff-review access to a newspaper's server. Such a mechanism could, in theory, be used to establish that the Defendant himself posted or disclosed the material at issue. However, the Commonwealth has made no such evidentiary showing linking the disclosure to the Defendant by his own hand. Absent that proof, the Court cannot find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, even if the same facts might suffice under a civil preponderance standard.

Order of the Court

Thus, the Court adjudicates as follows:

The Court finds Defendant, AsexualDinosaur, NOT GUILTY of Breach of Attorney-Client Privilege.

1) The Department of Homeland Security shall refund or compensate for any fines or jail time imposed as a result of this criminal charge.

So ordered,
Judge Mug

**This version of the verdict is controlling over all other iterations and versions.**