Lawsuit: Pending Commonwealth of Redmont v. .Savannah212467 [2026] FCR 3

[AmityBlamity]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION

Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

V.

.Savannah212467
Defendant

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

Savannah212467 disclosed private discussions concerning legal matters between herself and her lawfirm, and 12700k, breaching attorney-client privilege.

I. PARTIES
1. Commonwealth of Redmont (Prosecution)
2. .Savannah212467 (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. .Savannah212467 is the Founder and Managing Partner at Iustita Law. (P-002)
2. .Savannah212467 holds the Solicitor legal qualification, as well as Barrister legal qualifications in Constitutional Law and Property (P-001).
3. On the 31st of December, 2025, 12700k opened a ticket (#service-ticket-ftlceo) with Lustia Law to inquire about “employee poaching laws”. (P-003a to P-003k)
4. Shortly after opening the ticket, 12700k asked if attorney-client privilege was in effect.
5. Savannah responded, “Attorney client privilege? Ya”(P-003b).
6. On the 1st of January, 2026, .Savannah21247 posted screenshots taken from #service-ticket-ftlceo in the public #Legal channel on the DemocracyCraft server. (P-004a-d, P-005)
7. On the 1st of January, 2026, Investigator Rookieblue14 sent a private DM to 12700k, asking if he gave written consent to .Savannah212467 or anyone from Iustitia Law to disclose information from the ticket. 12700k confirmed he didn’t. (P-006).
8. As of the 17th of January, 2026, the material remains posted within #Legal.

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

• One count of Breaking Attorney-Client Privilege under §VIII(4)(d), committed when a person “discloses discussions of a client without their written permission.” Not only did the Defendant breach Attorney-Client Privilege after assuring their client it was in effect, they did so publicly in one of Redmont’s most trafficked channels.

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

• 200 Penalty units, 20 minutes of imprisonment, and disbarment for one month.

Spoiler: P-001: Qualifications

Spoiler: P-002: Savannah’s Discord Roles

Spoiler: P-003a-P-003k: The entirety of 12700k’s ticket with Iustita Law.

Spoiler: P-004a-d: Savannah’s message in #Legal, as well as the shared screenshots.

Spoiler: P-005: Savannah’s follow-up message.

Spoiler: P-006: 12700k confirming he didn’t give permission.

Witnesses:
12700k
RookieBlue

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.

DATE: This 17th day of January, 2026

 

[AmityBlamity]

Your Honour, per Rule 3.3, I shall be amending the facts of the criminal complaint as such:

1. .Savannah212467 is the Founder and Managing Partner at Iustita Law. (P-001) (P-002)
2. .Savannah212467 holds the Solicitor legal qualification, as well as Barrister legal qualifications in Constitutional Law and Property (P-002). (P-001).

 

[Muggy21]

Writ of Summons

@Savannah, is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Commonwealth of Redmont v. .Savannah212467 [2026] FCR 3

ALL PARTIES, please review the new Regulations of the Federal Court!

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.

 

[Savannah]

Present, your honour

 

[Muggy21]

Present, your honour

Thanks, please present a plea within 72 Hours.

 

[Savannah]

Plea​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
PLEA

Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Savannah212467
Defendant

I. ENTRY OF PLEA
I Plea Not Guilty.

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 January 2026

 

[Muggy21]

Discovery now Open
Until 1/26/26 @ 9pm EST.

 

[Savannah]

Discovery now Open
1/26/26 @ 9pm EST.

Your honour, is this saying it is open *until* 1/26/26 @ 9pm EST?

 

[Muggy21]

Your honour, is this saying it is open *until* 1/26/26 @ 9pm EST?

Dunno what you're talking about, it was always like that.

(thx)

 

[AmityBlamity]

The Commonwealth is content to end Discovery early if the Defendant agrees.

@Savannah

 

[Savannah]

I respectfully decline ending discovery early. Thank you.

 

[Savannah]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL
The Defence requests all documents pertaining to the following from the Prosecution

1: the methodology the DoJ uses for sentencing recommendations
2: rules and regulations for prosecutorial misconduct aside from the publicly posted code of conduct in forums

 

[Savannah]

Your honour, I wish to file an anonymous whistleblower as a witness in closed court, and I wish to provide further details in said closed court.

 

[Muggy21]

Your honour, I wish to file an anonymous whistleblower as a witness in closed court, and I wish to provide further details in said closed court.

Created. Check discord for invite

 

[Savannah]

Your honour, I realize I have formatted this wrong, (I was half asleep when I posted this) may I please ask this to be struck and be permitted to repost this motion with the correct formatting?

 

[Savannah]

I pressed reply, idk why its not letting me reply to the post i want to reply to

 

[Muggy21]

Your honour, I realize I have formatted this wrong, (I was half asleep when I posted this) may I please ask this to be struck and be permitted to repost this motion with the correct formatting?

Go for it

 

[Savannah]

Motion​

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

The Defense requests all documents pertaining to the following from the Prosecution

1: the methodology the DoJ uses for sentencing recommendations

2: rules and regulations for prosecutorial misconduct aside from the publicly posted code of conduct in forums.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Motion​

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

The Defense requests all documents pertaining to the following from the Prosecution

1: the methodology the DoJ uses for sentencing recommendations

2: rules and regulations for prosecutorial misconduct aside from the publicly posted code of conduct in forums.

Please find attached the DoJ Policy Handbook.

 

[Muggy21]

@AmityBlamity @Savannah

Parties shall have 48 Hours to prepare an Opening Statement.
Deadline: 1/30/26 @ 9PM EST.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Opening Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honour,

Today, we are faced with a saddening case. One that damages the reputation of the legal profession, and shakes confidence in those who represent us in court. 12700k approached .Savannah212467 in confidence, fully trusting that the information he shared would be kept secret, as Attorney-Client privilege dictates. .Savannah212467 responded by airing this information openly in a public Discord server.

Per precedent from Commonwealth of Redmont v. AsexualDinosaur [2025] FCR 127,” 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.
2. The Commonwealth must demonstrate that the actor who allegedly disclosed the privileged material was an attorney bound by the duties imposed by the Criminal Code Act.
3. The attorney must improperly disclose the material.”

Firstly, was the material in question privileged? Most certainly. The material shared was screenshots from a private ticket where 12700k was asking questions relating to a legal matter. 12700k even asked if Attorney-Client privilege was in effect, which .Savannah212467 confirmed. As 12700k confirmed in P-006, he did not give permission, written or otherwise, for .Savannah212467 to share this material. Thus, the material in question was privileged.

Secondly, was the actor who allegedly disclosed the privileged material an attorney bound by the duties imposed by the Criminal Code Act? Absolutely. .Savannah212467 is an experienced member of Redmont’s legal scene, the Founder and Managing Partner at Iustita Law and someone in possession of the Solicitor legal qualification, as well as Barrister legal qualifications in Constitutional Law and Property. Per P-002, she was acting in her capacity as Managing Partner at Iustita Law, offering legal advice on a question posed by 12700k. Thus, we can confirm she was an attorney bound by the duties imposed by the Criminal Code Act.

Thirdly, was the material improperly disclosed? Without a doubt. It is one thing to share privileged information in private. It is another altogether to post screenshots from a private ticket in the #Legal channel. .Savannah212467 did this knowing full well she did not have permission to do so, and that she had previously reassured 12700k that this material was protected. The material was absolutely improperly disclosed.

Your Honour, it is rare we are faced with an “open and shut case”, but I hope you will agree that this indeed one worthy of such a designation. .Savannah212467 broke Attorney-Client privilege and should face the full consequences for her actions.

 

[Savannah]

Your honour, may I have a 48 hr extension on my opening statement?

 

[Muggy21]

Your honour, may I have a 48 hr extension on my opening statement?

Granted, 48 hrs extra

 

[Savannah]

Opening Statement

<br>IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT<br>OPENING STATEMENT<br><br>
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT


Opening Statement


Sentancing Recommendations in the Law

---

On the Executive Standards Act​

According to §8(1)(c) of the Executive Standards Act the Department of Justice is tasked with “Acting ethically and lawfully at the President’s direction” now what is “ethical” is up for interpretation this is a question that has been asked since the dawn of humanity afterall. For example certain metaethical theories i.e. certain sects of utilitarianism advocate against punitive measures as unethical and well a major responsibility of the DoJ is to see that criminals are punished additionally certain ethical theories might require the DoJ to act when it is not required by law or an average person working at the DoJ would not consider the action as necessary to fulfill their duty to be ethical.

So in the statute this word has to be interpreted as what most people in our contemporary society would think of as “ethical”. Additionally the DoJ as an institution should not required to take aforementioned action purely for being “ethical” when it has absolutely no relation to its other responsibilities (i.e. philanthropic measures) thus this subsubsection also must be interpreted as requiring the DoJ to act “ethical” in the execution of its other responsibilities.


Fantastic, now that we have that out of the way we need to ask if an average person would think that the DoJ had to make preportional recommendations for sentencing. Personally I would think that being put on trial for a small offense (as done here) and being threatened with a $20,000 fine and having my livelihood destroyed by being disbarred for 2 months is pretty unethical so I think it is pretty safe to say that the ESA bounds the DoJ in this way. This is also the interpretation of the DoJ’s Policy handbook.

On the Criminal Code Act​

Under I§5(2) sentencing should be weighed against numerous aggravating and mitigating factors. The defendant is a first time offender (§5(2)(d)), did not have malicious intent (§5(2)(b)), the leaking was in relation to a small question asked and not for instance the leaking of an entire case (§5(2)(c)), etc.

On the DoJ’s Own Policy​

The Department of Justice’s own handbook states “[prosecutors] should


determine sentencing based upon the seriousness of the event in front of them, as well

as past offenses which may have relation to it.” did the Department consider aforementioned mitigating factors and adhere to its own rule? No.


Research of the Sentencing Recommendations of the Department of Justice

---

The defense counsel has taken it upon themselves to tediously examine the sentencing recommendations by the Department of Justice by looking at 10 cases from the FCR and 10 cases from the DCR. The sampling was done by looking at both courts case archives and finding the first 10 cases from each court and excluding ones that were duplicates. For the sake of simplicity in cases with multiple charges defense will only itemize them as needed. The Defense will now present its findings to this honorable federal court:

Federal Court Cases​

[2025] FCR 127


Sentance sought: 200 penalty units; 20 minutes of imprisonment | 100% of the maximum penalty


Verdict: Not Guilty


[2025] FCR 123


Sentance Sought: 400 penalty units; 120 minutes of imprisonment | 100% of maximum penalty


Verdict: Not Guilty


[2025] FCR 113


Sentence sought: 150 penalty units; 90 minutes of imprisonment | 75% of maximum penalty


Plea Deal: 25 penalty units; 45 minutes of imprisonment | ~17% of recommended fine; half of recommended imprisonment


[2025] FCR 97


Sentence Sought: 180 penalty units | 90% of maximum penalty


Dismissed with prejudice



[2025] FCR 83


Sentance Sought: 200 penalty units; 10 minutes of imprisonment | 100% of maximum penalty


Dismissed without prejudice: failed to respond to order to show cause


[2025] FCR 64


Sentence sought: 250 penalty units; 2 months disqualification | 100% of maximum penalty


Nolle prosequied: the prosecution “no longer [wished] to proceed with the case”

[2025] FCR 57


Sentence Sought


Legal Fraud: $7,500 | 100% of maximum penalty


Legal Malpractice $7,500 | 100% maximum penalty


Total: $15000 | 100% of maximum penalty


Verdict


Legal Fraud - Not Guilty


Legal Malpractice - Guilty: $7,500 | 100% of recommended penalty


Total: $15000 | 50% of recommended penalty

[2025] FCR 46: NOTE


Sentence sought: $10000, divesture of assets | 100% of maximum penalty (note whilst the maximum penalty allowed for imprisonment, pre-CCA had no mechanism of translating imprisonment into a fine for entities that were not natural people thus it is discounted)


Plea deal: divestiture of assets


[2025] FCR 23


Sentence sought : $30000; 40 minutes of imprisonment | 50% of the maximum fine; 0% of the maximum period for disqualification; ~67% of the maximum period of imprisonment


Nolle prosequied


[2025] FCR 3: NOTE


Sentance sought


Harassment, Alarm, or Distress: $10,000; 60 minutes of imprisonment | 100% of maximum penalty


Hostage Holding: $100; 10 minutes of imprisonment | 100% of maximum penalty


Conspiracy to commit extortion: $25,000; 120 minutes of imprisonment | 100% of maximum penalty


Total: $35,100; 190 minutes of imprisonment | 100% of maximum penalty


Verdict


Harassment, alarm, or distress; conspiracy to commit extortion - not guilty: the court deemed that these charges were a violation of the constitutionally protected freedom from double jeopardy


Hostage Holding - guilty: $100; 10 minutes of imprisonment | 100% of maximum penalty

District Court Cases​

[2026] DCR 4


Sentence sought: 60 minutes of imprisonment; 3 penalty units | 100% of maximum penalty


Plea Deal: 45 minutes of imprisonment; 3 penalty units | ~67% of recommended imprisoment; 100% of recommended fine

[2025] DCR 102


Sentence sought: 100 penalty units; 10 minutes of imprisonment | 100% of maximum fine; 100% of maximum imprisonment


Defense pled guilty with no plea deal: 40 penalty units; 10 minutes of imprisonment | 40% of recommended fine; 100% of recommended imprisonment

[2025] DCR 99


Sentence sought: 10 minutes of imprisonment; 50 penalty units | 100% of maximum imprisonment; 50% of maximum fine


Dismissed: the prosecution failed to respond to a motion to dismiss

[2025] DCR 91


Sentence sought: 100 penalty unit fine; 60 minutes of imprisonment | 100% of maximum penalty


Plea deal: 25 penalty unit fine; 15 minutes of imprisonment | 25% of recommended fine; %25 of recommended imprisonment

[2025] DCR 85


Sentence sought: 3 penalty units; 60 minutes of imprisonment | 100% of maximum penalty


Defendant plead guilty with no plea deal: 3 penalty units; 60 minutes of imprisonment | 100% of maximum penalty

[2025] DCR 84


Sentence sought: 50 penalty unit fine; 10 minutes of imprisonment | 25% of maximum fine; ~17% of maximum imprisonment


Plea deal: 50 penalty units; 3 minutes of imprisonment | 100% of recommended fine; 30% of recommended imprisonment


[2025] DCR 76


Sentence sought: 50 penalty units; 10 minutes of imprisonment | 50% of maximum fine; 100% of maximum imprisonment


Dismissed

[2025] DCR 59


Sentence sought: 7.5 penalty units; 5 minutes of imprisonment | 15% of maximum fine; 100% of maximum imprisonment

Nolle prosquied: mistake in filing among other reasons

[2025] DCR 39

Sentence sought: 1.5 penalty units; 20 minutes of imprisonment | 50% of maximum fine; ~67% of maximum imprisonment

Not guilty

[2025] DCR 10


Sentence sought: $1000 (minimum sentence); OR alternative: 15 minutes of community service


Guilty: 15 minutes of community service (the alternative sentence)

In 7/10 of the cases filed in the federal court and in 3/10 (4 if we exclude offenses with disqualification penalties) of the cases filed in the district the Department of Justice sought 90% or more of the maximum sentence





Arguably the most laughably absurd instance of the Department of Justice’s misconduct is in [2025] FCR 3 where prosecutor AlexanderLove (who the defendant alleged to have personal motivations in his conduct) not only made a mockery of the 16th Charter Right but he also exploited a quirk in pre-CCA law where he recommended the maximum sentence for conspiracy a fine of $25,000 and 120 minutes of imprisonment when the maximum penalty for the conspired crime was a mere fine of $10,000 and half the imprisonment for conspiracy. The defendant in that case remarked in his answer to the complaint “how does a crime elevate by 2.5 times for failing to commit it?” the defense (in this case) is unaware if AlexanderLove was actually punished by the Department of Justice but nevertheless he was not even taken off the case and filed another where he had an obvious COI in ~26 days later. This instance should be cemented as a testament to DoJ flaws.

<br>

 

[Muggy21]

@AmityBlamity Present your questions to your witnesses within 24 Hours (lemme know if more time is needed).
@Savannah In this thread (without mentioning the name of the witness), please present questions to your witness. You also have 24 hrs under the same condition.

 

[Savannah]

@AmityBlamity Present your questions to your witnesses within 24 Hours (lemme know if more time is needed).
@Savannah In this thread (without mentioning the name of the witness), please present questions to your witness. You also have 24 hrs under the same condition.

Your honour, for clarification, are you telling me to ask the questions in the closed court, here on forums, or both?

 

[Muggy21]

Your honour, for clarification, are you telling me to ask the questions in the closed court, here on forums, or both?

Here, the Court will get the answers from the witness in Closed Court.

 

[AmityBlamity]

12700k:

1. Why did you open a ticket in the Iustita Law Discord server?
2. In P-003b, when you say “This ACP right”, what were you referring to?
3. Did you ever give permission, written or otherwise, for Savannah to post excerpts from your conversation in #Legal?

Rookieblue:

1. What prompted you to begin investigating Savannah?

The prosecution reserves the right to ask additional questions.

 

[Savannah]

@AmityBlamity Present your questions to your witnesses within 24 Hours (lemme know if more time is needed).
@Savannah In this thread (without mentioning the name of the witness), please present questions to your witness. You also have 24 hrs under the same condition.

your honour, I apologize for the repeated extension requests, but I am having problems/issues IRL rn with being harassed and more, so I do not have the time to get this done in just few minutes. May I have until 5pm Feb 3rd MST? Again, I really apologize, but I am dealing with lots of things rn. I will try to get everything in the future done without extension as much as possible

 

[Muggy21]

your honour, I apologize for the repeated extension requests, but I am having problems/issues IRL rn with being harassed and more, so I do not have the time to get this done in just few minutes. May I have until 5pm MST? Again, I really apologize, but I am dealing with lots of things rn. I will try to get everything in the future done without extension as much as possible

Granted, until 9pm EST.

Further, please don't feel compelled to share beyond just having an IRL situation. I, nor any other JO, will ever need to know your personal circumstance.

 

[Muggy21]

Commonwealth objected to inclusion of Confidential Witness stating:

Your Honour, the defendant has thusfar failed to make clear why this whistleblower is at all relevant to the case. To the best of my knowledge, this case does not pertain to Doge in any manner, and I fail to see what sentencing recommendations have to do with the defendant's alleged violation of attorney-client privilege. This is looking more and more like a potential character assassination against the AG, who's involvement in this case has almost been non-existent.

In response, Defense stated:

The whistle blower’s relevancy is to show and attest to the fact that the DOJ has been giving outrageous sentencing recommendations (against the DOJ handbook) and other findings, so yes, this is relevant

OVERRULED.

Sentencing is a integral part of criminal defense and as such a witness shall not be disallowed on the basis that the CW believes he or she may have no relevance to the defense. Furthermore, the Constitution grants criminal defendants liberal latitude in ensuring they are adequately defended; The Court will defer to criminal defendants in the pursuit of his or her own defense.

 

[Savannah]

Witness questions:

1: based on your knowledge of DemocracyCraft law and practice, and your previous role(s) in the doj, do you believe a clear breach of attorney-client privilege occurred in this situation?

Explain why or why not, using facts and dc law

2: Would you say there is room for interpretation in how privilege is applied on DemocracyCraft or do you believe it is clear cut?

3: have you witnessed or have proof of previous wrongings of the DOJ regarding to sentencing recommendations or other matters? If so, please explain and cite if possible

4: if you believe attorney-client privilege has been breached, do you believe that the sentencing recommendation given is appropriate for this matter?

If you believe that it has not been breached, say “I do not believe there has been a breach”

5: using Dc law, your knowledge, and your experience, what is your overall opinion on this matter?

 

[AmityBlamity]

Witness questions:

1: based on your knowledge of DemocracyCraft law and practice, and your previous role(s) in the doj, do you believe a clear breach of attorney-client privilege occurred in this situation?

Explain why or why not, using facts and dc law

2: Would you say there is room for interpretation in how privilege is applied on DemocracyCraft or do you believe it is clear cut?

3: have you witnessed or have proof of previous wrongings of the DOJ regarding to sentencing recommendations or other matters? If so, please explain and cite if possible

4: if you believe attorney-client privilege has been breached, do you believe that the sentencing recommendation given is appropriate for this matter?

If you believe that it has not been breached, say “I do not believe there has been a breach”

5: using Dc law, your knowledge, and your experience, what is your overall opinion on this matter?

Objection

On Question 3, Relevance, Facts Not in Evidence

Again, this case has nothing to do with alleged wrongdoings from the DOJ. The matter at hand is whether or not the defendant committed a breach of attorney-client privilege. Furthermore, these alleged wrongdoings have not been factually established. Finally, Discovery is over. Any proof this supposed whistleblower had should have been previously introduced.

On Question 4, Leading Questions

The defendant is literally asking the witness to repeat what they have said.

On Question 5, Ambiguous

Your Honour, it is not at all clear what the Defendant is asking for. An overall opinion on the matter of what?

 

[Savannah]

Your honour, may I request to have the ability to fix questions 4 and 5 as well as respond to the objection to question 3?

 

[Muggy21]

Your honour, may I request to have the ability to fix questions 4 and 5 as well as respond to the objection to question 3?

Yes

 

[AmityBlamity]

Witness questions:

1: based on your knowledge of DemocracyCraft law and practice, and your previous role(s) in the doj, do you believe a clear breach of attorney-client privilege occurred in this situation?

Explain why or why not, using facts and dc law

2: Would you say there is room for interpretation in how privilege is applied on DemocracyCraft or do you believe it is clear cut?

3: have you witnessed or have proof of previous wrongings of the DOJ regarding to sentencing recommendations or other matters? If so, please explain and cite if possible

4: if you believe attorney-client privilege has been breached, do you believe that the sentencing recommendation given is appropriate for this matter?

If you believe that it has not been breached, say “I do not believe there has been a breach”

5: using Dc law, your knowledge, and your experience, what is your overall opinion on this matter?

Objection

OBJECTION - Foundation

Your Honour, the defendant has requested the whistleblower answer numerous questions pertaining to a legal nature. Notably, they're asking for testimony on ACT breaches, the interpretation of privilege, and possible wrongdoings regarding DOJ sentencing recommendations. Thusfar, in both open and closed court, the defendant has failed to establish that this individual is qualified to speak on these matters.