Lawsuit: In Session Commonwealth of Redmont v. JuliaMC_ [2026] FCR 30

Scassany

Scassany

The Best Foxgirl
Senior Administrator
Administrator
Vice President
Supporter
Aventura Resident
Education Department
Justice Department
6th Anniversary Lawmaker Statesman Staff
Scassany
Scassany
Vice President
Joined
Aug 27, 2025
Messages
94

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION


Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.
JuliaMC_
Defendant

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

On November 27th, 2025, Defendant Julia Tempest (JuliaMC_) posted a screenshot containing a ticket within the Office of Congressional Affairs [P-01], this ticket was declared LEG-SECRET by then Speaker Talion77 [P-02], the Office of Congressional affairs Primary Classification Officer (PCO), making the ticket and its deliberations classified information as defined by the Classified Materials Act. Through the posting of this classified information in the public forum, The defendant has committed Breach of Integrity, a punishable offense through the Criminal Code Act Additionally, the Defendant later admits to the crime [P-03], proving knowledge of the criminal nature and intent to fulfill said crime.


I. PARTIES
1. Commonwealth of Redmont
2. JuliaMC_

II. FACTS
1. The Congressional Affairs Office ticket "#foi-deliberations-25569" was classified as LEG-SECRET.
2. This Classification was upheld legally, placed by its respective PCO
3. This Classification was applied on November 18th, 2025
4. On November 27th, JuliaMC_ released the contents of this ticket in a public forum, specifically the #politics channel in the DemocracyCraft public Discord
5. Breach of Integrity, found in Part III Section 10 of the Criminal Code Act, is the releasing of classified information to the public without authorization
6. Section 9 of the Classified Materials Act states "The disclosure of materials classified by this Act by an unauthorised individual or entity will constitute the crime of breach of integrity."
7. JuliaMC_ at the time of releasing the information, was not authorized to disclose the contents of the classified ticket
8. On November 27th, JuliaMC_ confessed that "... with a sound mind and body, do confess to committing one charge of breach of integrity."


III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. One count of Breach of Integrity. Given disclosure of classified information improperly is a violation of Part III, Section 10 of the Criminal Code Act

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. 200 Penalty Units [20 thousand Redmont Dollars]

Witnesses:
1) Talion77 - PCO at time for the Office of Congressional Affairs

Evidence:

1776648762870.png
1776648769162.png
1776648775876.png
1776648808598.png
1776648813947.png
1776648819903.png
1776648825401.png

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 19th of April 2026

 
Last edited:
Anthony_Org said:
Your honor, I was in office during this time. I'd like to file an Amicus brief on the political situation at the time and how it may have affected this situation
Click to expand...
Granted, you have 48 Hours to respond.
 
Last edited:

Writ of Summons

@Julia_ is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Commonwealth of Redmont v. Juliamc_ [2026] FCR 30

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.

 
Muggy21 said:
Granted, you have 48 Hours to respond.
Click to expand...
Your honor, may I have more time to respond? I have finals in roughly 1 hour that continue until tomorrow. After which I have a 4 hour drive. The earliest I can reasonably respond would be Wednesday. I can shoot over my finals schedule to prove I am not a liar liar pants on fire.
 
Anthony_Org said:
Your honor, may I have more time to respond? I have finals in roughly 1 hour that continue until tomorrow. After which I have a 4 hour drive. The earliest I can reasonably respond would be Wednesday. I can shoot over my finals schedule to prove I am not a liar liar pants on fire.
Click to expand...
Take an additional 48 hours on top.
 

Plea


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
PLEA

Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Julia Tempest (JuliaMC_)
Defendant

I. ENTRY OF PLEA
1. Defendant pleads NOT GUILTY to one count of Breach of Integrity.

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 29th day of April 2026

 

Opening Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Opening Statement -

Your honor,

The Commonwealth brings a case against JuliaMC_ on the charge of Breach of Integrity, where she knowingly and explicitly leaked classified information from a ticket into a public chat. This information was not protected from whistleblower protections, and after leaking this information, the defendant confessed to the crime with serious and explicit intent.

On Breach of Integrity

Under the Criminal Code Act, Breach of Integrity is defined as when a person "shares classified information without authorization." We can see in P-02 the information leaked was legally classified by the PCO in accordance with the Classified Materials Act. We can see in P-04 through P-07 that the PCO did not declassify the ticket at any time, nor gave consent for anyone to disclose the contents of the ticket. The PCO additionally did not privately give consent for any people to disclose the ticket, which we will prove with witness testimony. In P-01, we see that the defendant sent images of the ticket into a public channel. By the defendant sharing these images in a public channel, classified information was shared, without authorization, therefore committing breach of integrity.

I Admit Act

In P-03, the defendant states "I ... with a sound mind and body, do confess to committing one charge of breach of integrity." The I Admit Act states "Anytime that someone admits guilt to a crime, by seriously and explicitly stating the crime that they committed, they are confessing guilt in committing the crime." In this case, we see that the defendant seriously and explicitly admits guilt in that they have committed the crime of breach of integrity. The I Admit Act also states "This admission of guilt may then be used in court in order to satisfy the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt." With the supplementary evidence provided, this proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant indeed committed the crime.

On Whistleblower Protections

The Whistleblowers Act states that whistleblowers are protected in their release of "information regarding any activity that is deemed illegal, illicit, unsafe, or a waste, fraud, or abuse of taxpayer funds." As shown by the ticket transcripts shown in P-04 through P-07, we can see that there was no illegal, illicit, or unsafe activity, nor any waste, fraud, or abuse of taxpayer funds. The ticket correctly followed the rule of law for appealing a Judicial FOI, all actions taken within the ticket were reasonable, and no activity was unsafe. As the contents of the ticket do not contain any information that would apply to whistleblower protections, they should not apply in this case.

Congressional Duties

The Classified Materials Act states that "an unauthorized disclosure will not be considered a breach" when it "Is made by a Member of Congress in the course of official congressional duties". The intent of this clause is to allow congressmembers the ability to properly carry out their duties as members of congress. In 8(12) we see that this intent is further defined as "acting in their official capacity to provide oversight of government". Furthermore, in 8(12)(b) we see that the intent of this oversight does not extend into the public release of the information received during these duties. When the defendant released the contents of the ticket publicly, she was no longer acting in accordance with her official congressional duties on government oversight, and therefore no longer protected under 9(3)(b) of the CMA.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top