Lawsuit: In Session Commonwealth of Redmont v. End [2025] FCR 97

P

pricelessAgrari

Citizen
Homeland Security Department
Justice Department
Education Department
Aventura Resident
5th Anniversary Change Maker
pricelessAgrari
pricelessAgrari
Sergeant
Joined
Mar 17, 2025
Messages
113

​

Case Filing


Case Filing​


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION


Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

End
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Prosecution alleges criminal actions committed by the Defendant as follows:
(Notice: The times used will be in CST, as that is my local time)
On the morning of August 4th, 2025, an investigative hearing was launched into End regarding a policy they created. At 4:00 a.m. the next day, End released classified conversations with the president at a CABINET level, claiming “Lucky i can release my own info” and “So what do you want to see” beforehand, and being told “due to possible classified information, the returned information will be restricted.” earlier by Omegabiebel. End ignored the Representative's efforts and released classified conversations. Seeing as End wrote the Classification Act and is a Secretary of the Cabinet, they should know what information is allowed to be released and what isn’t.


I. PARTIES
1. Commonwealth of Redmont (Prosecution)
2. End (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. An Investigative Hearing was held on August 4th, 2025, to investigate End’s improper handling of a new policy, titled “The Fairness Fee”.
2. End was told not to release the information before the screenshots were posted. (See p-005)
3. According to the Criminal Code Act, Breach of Integrity occurs when someone “shares classified information without authorisation.”.
4. By releasing the conversation, End knowingly released information that could have caused collateral damage to the Cabinet.
5. In the Classification Act, a Cabinet-level classification is considered “Information that has the potential to cause collateral damage to the solidarity of Cabinet.”.
6. Using this definition, it is clear that the secretary’s actions were unlawful.
7. During the investigation of End’s crime in the DoJ, they admitted that they knew this was a Breach of Integrity and understood what they had done was illegal.


III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. One count of Breach of Integrity- End’s actions in this incident showcased Breach of Integrity, using the definition laid out by the Criminal Code Act, “shares classified information without authorisation.”. End shared a CABINET-level classified conversation in a public chat, which is the exact definition given to us by the act.

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. On one count of Breach of Integrity, a sentencing of 180 penalty points, as per the Criminal Code Act.

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 21st day of September 2025

List of Evidence​
1758507265960.png

1758507274941.png

1758507314009.png

1758507327280.png

1758507341085.png

1758507349986.png



Witness List
Omegabiebel
​

​
 
Last edited:
I amended my lawsuit to add a prefix. Sorry for confusion.
 
Just to confirm, by "End" you mean xEndeavour?
 

Writ of Summons

@End , is required to appear before the federal Court in the case of Commonwealth of Redmont v. End [2025] FCR 97

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.

 

Motion


MOTION TO DISMISS

The Defendant respectfully motions to dismiss this case on the grounds that the Prosecution has failed to state an offence.

The alleged conduct of 'sharing classified information without authorisation' is contradicted by the fact that, at the time of occurrence, the Defendant did have authorisation to access and handle the material under the provisions of the Classification Act.

Applicable Law

The relevant portions of the Classification Act in effect at the time provide that:

1. s4(2): The Executive is responsible for assigning security clearances.

2. s4(8): A Secretary may apply a classification to all future messages in a department discussion of theirs…

3. s6(2): SC-2 clearance authorises access to CABINET information. This clearance includes all members of Cabinet, including the President.

Authorisation under the Act

At the time, the Defendant was a Secretary with the relevant security classification to view the channel and CABINET information.

Further, the Defendant was partaking in a discussion in #dct, a department discussion of theirs.

The Act clearly provides that members of the Executive Cabinet have the right to apply classifications and the clearance to access Cabinet-level material.

The act does not specify declassification authority or processes. As such, it can be assumed that anyone with a reasonable connection to the material and who has the classification authority, can also release the material to the public domain as declassified.

The offence of Breach of Integrity s7(3) only applies 'where an individual shares information of classified nature when unauthorised.'

Since the Defendant was authorised, the essential element of the offence (lack of authorisation) is not satisfied.

Without alleging facts showing the Defendant was acting without authorisation, the complaint does not state an offence under the Act.

Prayer

The Defendant respectfully requests this Court to:

1. Dismiss the complaint in its entirety for failure to state an offence.

2. Award $2000 legal costs to the Defendant.

 
End said:

Motion


MOTION TO DISMISS

The Defendant respectfully motions to dismiss this case on the grounds that the Prosecution has failed to state an offence.

The alleged conduct of 'sharing classified information without authorisation' is contradicted by the fact that, at the time of occurrence, the Defendant did have authorisation to access and handle the material under the provisions of the Classification Act.

Applicable Law

The relevant portions of the Classification Act in effect at the time provide that:

1. s4(2): The Executive is responsible for assigning security clearances.

2. s4(8): A Secretary may apply a classification to all future messages in a department discussion of theirs…

3. s6(2): SC-2 clearance authorises access to CABINET information. This clearance includes all members of Cabinet, including the President.

Authorisation under the Act

At the time, the Defendant was a Secretary with the relevant security classification to view the channel and CABINET information.

Further, the Defendant was partaking in a discussion in #dct, a department discussion of theirs.

The Act clearly provides that members of the Executive Cabinet have the right to apply classifications and the clearance to access Cabinet-level material.

The act does not specify declassification authority or processes. As such, it can be assumed that anyone with a reasonable connection to the material and who has the classification authority, can also release the material to the public domain as declassified.

The offence of Breach of Integrity s7(3) only applies 'where an individual shares information of classified nature when unauthorised.'

Since the Defendant was authorised, the essential element of the offence (lack of authorisation) is not satisfied.

Without alleging facts showing the Defendant was acting without authorisation, the complaint does not state an offence under the Act.

Prayer

The Defendant respectfully requests this Court to:

1. Dismiss the complaint in its entirety for failure to state an offence.

2. Award $2000 legal costs to the Defendant.

Click to expand...
Your Honor, may I respond?
 
You may.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top