Lawsuit: Adjourned Corporate Security Union v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 15

[xLayzur]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Corporate Security Union (xlayzur representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Education & Commerce
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The Department of Education & Commerce Secretary, Trentrick_Lamar released five months' worth of raw consumer price index information to the public. All economical data was released to the public violating all citizen's and business privacy.

I. PARTIES
1. Corporate Security Union
2. DEC Secretary. Trentrick_Lamar

II. FACTS
1. Secretary Trentrick_Lamar willingly released all raw CPI data on August 31st. (Exhibit-A)
2. Secretary Trentrick_Lamar stated by releasing this information, it’ll show that he does not configure Walgreen's sales information. (Exhibit-B)
3. Releasing this amount of economic data violates company privacy as now multiple individuals have the ability to data mine and dig into company profits, citizen purchases, and company chestshops created/removed. (Exhibit-C)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Violation of 11.1 - Corporate Espionage, sensitive company information was comprised without the instruction of companies.
2. Violation of 16.1 - Corruption, gave advantage to other citizens by releasing information as certain individuals copying documents of the CPI.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $200,000 in Corporate Damages, will be split among the Union.
2. Removal of Office of Secretary Trentrick_Lamar
3. Court order an injunction against the Department of Education & Commerce to prevent this from happening again and to make sure this information is classified.

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 6th day of September 2022

 

[Wuutie]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The Attorney General is required to appear before the Supreme Court in the case of the Corporate Security Union v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 15

Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​

 

[HugeBob]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your honor, I will be representing the State in this matter.
The defense move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Corporate Espionage is defined as: "Any parties participating in, or accessory to the gathering, infiltration, or compromise of any sensitive company information that has not already been released to the public under the instruction of the company's controlling interest." The information collected, generated, and released through the CPI program is not owned by any corporation, it is created, collected, and owned by the DEC and the broader Government of Redmont. Furthermore, there is no expectation of privacy for this information as any person can walk into a store and see their prices listed on chestshops. Even if supplier chestshops are elsewhere, the 50% minimum commission law gives any random person a reasonable idea of what price items are being bought and sold for at any given store.

2. Corruption is a criminal offense and this is filed as a civil lawsuit. If the Plaintiff in this matter wishes to seek criminal charges against someone, they should reach out to the DLA to report an alleged crime to allow for someone with criminal prosecutorial authority to pursue the matter.

DATED: This 7th day of September 2021

 

[Wuutie]

The Plaintiff may respond on the motion within 48 hours.

 

[xLayzur]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
REBUTTAL TO MOTION TO DISMISS

Corporate Security Union (xlayzur representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Education & Commerce
Defendant

Your Honor, I wish to rebuttal the defendant's arguments.

1. The Consumer Price Index is a monthly data collection of the average market price of goods in the economy. Ever since its origination, it has only consisted of average prices of goods. Raw versions of the Consumer Price Index were released that displayed ALL financial activity. Citizens with access to those files have the ability to check how much a company made in profit for those months and how much it lost and shows every item a citizen has purchased during that month and from what company, also shows when the company chest shops were created and removed.
The defendant tries to say that the Consumer Price Index is not owned by any corporation, which is correct but the Corporate Espionage Law says "Any parties participating in, or accessory to the gathering, infiltration, or compromise of any sensitive company information that has not already been released to the public under the instruction of the company's controlling interest." The Department of Education & Commerce is a party figure which compromised sensitive company information without the instruction of the companies.

Quoted from the Defendant:

Furthermore, there is no expectation of privacy for this information as any person can walk into a store and see their prices listed on chestshops. Even if supplier chestshops are elsewhere, the 50% minimum commission law gives any random person a reasonable idea of what price items are being bought and sold for at any given store.

Yes, any citizen may walk up into a store and speculate how much a company makes depending on the prices of the products and how much employees of that company could make based on the prices. But that's on speculation and simple math, with raw versions of the consumer price index, exact numbers can be pulled to figure out much was made.

2. I am aware that Corruption is a criminal offense and must be charged by a prosecutor. The defendant says if I wish to charge this on someone I shall contact the Department of Legal Affairs to prompt an investigation for that matter. No action has been taken by the Department of Legal Affairs since the releasing of the raw consumer price index files and them displaying their reasoning with argument 1. in the motion to dismiss we can see why they wouldn't take the case. I am seeking that the civil case can turn criminal when the evidence and interpretation of the law call for a criminal investigation.

DATED: This 10th day of September 2022

 

[Wuutie]

The whole motion to dismiss has been denied by the Supreme Court. Exceptions has been made on the matter of criminal charges etc and we believe we can apply this here as well. I would like to move on to opening statements. The Plaintiff has 48 hours to file his opening statement.

 

[xLayzur]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Corporate Security Union
Plaintiff
v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

Your Honor,

First, I'd like to speak on behalf of the companies in this Union. We do not want our corporate information public or released as well without instruction. The Department of Education & Commerce is granted the ability to receive chest logs to construct a Consumer Price Index, a price index is a weighted average market basket of consumer goods. Its only use is to display economical data of the average change over time in the prices of goods in the market. Too much information was exposed to the public and is in the wrong hands. The faith of the people and of businesses has fallen with the Department of Commerce & Education because of this incident.

The defendant has motioned to dismiss while blatantly denying the law and ignoring the fact that the release of these files was illegal. The Government needs to be held accountable for the individuals that are trusted with certain powers and to hold information safely. The Secretary of the Department of Education & Commerce Trentrick_Lamar publicly released 5 months of the raw version of the consumer price index, aka all the chest log data. This action clearly violates the White-Collar Crack Down Act and is subject to punishments written within that law.

You can see Trentrick_Lamar the Secretary saying that this action of his vindicates himself showing as this information would show that he doesn't mess with company information being in this position. This can be a justification for this action but still, multiple people and companies were damaged by this. Corruption is the act of giving some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of other to unfairly benefit oneself, or someone else.

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 16th day of September 2022

 

[xLayzur]

Your Honor,

I request to Amend my Prayer of Relief in my initial filing to:

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Each company in the Corporate Security Union is to be paid $72,000 in damages. (Click on Union name for link)
- As per the White Collar Crack Down Act: (6) Any party or entity found liable for violating an Anti-Trust law can receive punitive damages up to 50.000$ for a player and up to 100.000$ for a company. As well as being required to compensate, the suing party if sustained damages which include attorney fees.

2. Removal of Office of Secretary Trentrick_Lamar
3. Court order an injunction against the Department of Education & Commerce to prevent this from happening again and to make sure this information is classified.

 

[Wuutie]

Thank you, the Defendant may respond always after a statement with his own within 48 hours of the other party to keep the case moving.

 

[HugeBob]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Corporate Security Union
Plaintiff
v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

Your Honor, I'll keep this simple.

The Plaintiff continues to claim, wrongly, that this data belongs to corporations that it represents. The CPI data is entirely collected and generated by the DEC. No corporation gives the DEC this data, the DEC creates it entirely independent of any private entity. The DEC released information to the public that the DEC owned outright.

Plaintiff suggests that this data was previously private prior to the DEC releasing it. This is false. Every store's prices can be determined by simply walking into the store. Prices are publicly displayed on all chestshops. This information was never private. Even in the case where supplier chests are located elsewhere, the minimum commission law allows anyone to determine the buy/sell price of any given product with an amount of math that doesn't even require a calculator.

Plaintiff claims that the releasing of this data constitutes corruption on the part of the DEC Secretary, but fails to demonstrate how they or their affiliates have benefitted from the release of this information, certainly not coming anywhere close to meeting the bar of being inconsistent with official duty. This was official duty. Plaintiff claims that people and companies were damaged by this, but fails to demonstrate how.

Thank you.

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 18th day of September 2022

 

[Wuutie]

Thank you both, if you wish to call witnesses pls make a list within 48 hours.

 

[Wuutie]

Sorry for late response, we can move on to closing statements. The Plaintiff may provide one.

 

[xLayzur]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Corporate Security Union
Plaintiff
v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

Your Honor, opposing counsel,
I would like to first address that the opposing counsel has constantly denied that the data is not private to the companies or citizens of the Commonwealth. They continue to express the idea that all company financial information can be generated by any individual by speculating on the prices of products in store of companies and regarding certain legislation that all companies must pay a 50% commission to employees. Saying that it is so easy to figure out it doesn't even require a calculator to find out. To me, this tells me that the defendant has the same reading abilities as the Famous Boxer, Floyd Mayweather, as I've stated clear facts as to why this information should not be public. The defendant rambles on about how the consumer price index (chest shop logs) is not given by any corporation which is false. The Government works coherently with the Staff team to fulfill certain duties and responsibilities.

Let's begin with how this Consumer Price Index is constructed.
The Department of Education & Commerce Secretary has the ability to request the chest shop logs from the server staff team. This is cultural knowledge that would be considered the "Raw Consumer Price Index, Raw CPI." Then within the Department of Education & Commerce, the raw consumer price index is gone through by a team of selected members to figure out the average market price of all goods in the economy from those logs. The final version of the consumer price index is displayed under the Price Index thread and all of those Consumer Price Indexes display only the average market price of goods. All previous versions of the consumer index price that were released monthly have ONLY included median market prices.

Companies have these logs accessible to them in-game through the command /csn history c:Companyname. Only a Manager or Owner of a company added to the in-game companies plugin can use this command. This gives the ability for companies to check who bought and sold items to their company chest shops, showing how much they made in profit, lose in profits, and who purchased products. A random citizen cannot run this command for a different company as it would say you're not allowed to check. This is a clear call for Corporate Espionage as any party releasing sensitive company information without the instruction of the said company is guilty of committing the crime.

All citizen financial activity was released, 5 months' worth of economic data to be exact. This is not fair to the people of the Commonwealth. It's nobody's business how a citizen chooses to spend their money. Anybody with the raw files of the consumer price index is capable of finding all information needed. This disrupts the trust that we hold with the government to be responsible for this information and shall be held accountable for managing this sensitive information poorly.

When Secretary Trentrick_Lamar released these raw versions of the consumer price index and stated that this benefits him from the fact that this proves that he doesn't meddle with information regarding his private company Walgreens. The Secretary of the Department of Education & Commerce is the only person capable of requesting the chest logs. In his official duty, he released the raw consumer price irresponsibly and says exposing all this data proves his own innocence.

I would love to give a chance for companies in the Union of Corporate Security to display their message as to why this is damaging to them.

Deadwax Luckys Executive:

"Luckys has been harmed by this suit as my suppliers have dried up. I am not receiving many people selling to me as i used to have. this has made my stock dry up and I had to raise buy prices to attempt to attract new suppliers I believe it is due to the CPI being released. with the CPI it's very easy for anyone to search the price of shops that buy products see the location and go right to the highest selling location and sell to that location."

Lavender Tipton Executive:

"This has damaged Tipton by showing everyone on the server what we sell to the accurate price point. My team of amazing people have worked very hard to get our price point to where it is today to please our suppliers and customers. All of our chests are behind locked doors in a locked section of our HQ. Now other competition can come in and either raise their prices or lower them and it will affect our company, customers and employees. Just the fact that it was four (4) months of completely raw data is an invasion of company privacy. We never got asked for consent for this information to be released, we never signed an agreement or was aware."

Olisaurus Lemonade Executive:

"Lemonade has had some very private sales and to make things easy we used chest shops, however, when this raw data was released, it gave everyone access to this information about Lemonade's private sales and information about the profit that was made on certain items that should never have been released to the public which may have affected people wanting to purchase from Lemonade."

BoopingBerry NexusChoice Executive:

"NexusChoice was hurt by the CPI release. After the CPI was announced, fewer people approached me to buy or sell me goods like elytras. This caught my attention, but until I saw the CPI report, I didn't give it much thought. Due to the fact that I had to compete with other stores, I also experienced a decrease in profits. This is because no one had asked permission to publish my logs for public use, thus everyone knew all of my prices and sales without me being informed."

FlyingBlocks Woods Stock & Woods Stock Warehouse Executive:

Woods Stock and Woods Stock warehouse were both hurt by the CPI release. We focus on one single product (logs) and did our best to provide an acceptable and fair price for consumer and producer. I invested a lot of money to get visible/central locations for my stores. This resulted in a growing number of buyers and sellers. After the CPI was released, stores lowered their prices, buyers knew exactly where to find cheaper options which decreased the amount of customers I worked hard for. I feel harmed by the fact that such detailed financial information about my company has been released which I've never agreed to and ended up in me losing buyers, sellers, and potential income.

Vernicia Shop Executive:

"VerniciaS was hurt by the CPI release. VerniciaS as the biggest company on the server data release gave too much information about the development and the current state of VerniciaS and what products are the most profitable for us. This Means VerniciaS is more vulnerable to their rivals. Also, I consider it a breach of privacy for my customers as the company loves to keep its customer privacy private."

WackJap Spectre, Nook n Cranny, and Storage Executive:

Spectre is an industry that thrives on its discretion. Having all our chest shop data released isn't just a breach of privacy for the company but also for our customers. Nook n Cranny has long thrived from its prime locations and low prices for enchanted items. With the release of the CPI data neither of these is viable business strategies and has totally disregarded the research, effort, and capital invested in this company, to the tune of weeks of research, months of effort, and well over a million in invested capital as my original company. Storage, a company that stores away items for players with sell chests, has also taken a hit from the CPI data as it also shows quite literally what items players are storing with us, which is an incredible breach of security and privacy and frankly rude exposure of the government's apathy for the term "private property" for everyone involved.

The message has been brought forth and it is clear the damages are shown. The Government must be held accountable for irresponsible actions. Thank you for the Courts Time.

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 24th day of September 2022

 

[JoeGamer]

Because of Wuutie's resignation as Chief Justice, I will preside over the remainder of this case.

The Commonwealth has until 27th of September at 11:40 Eastern Standard Time (48 hours) to provide a closing statement.

 

[HugeBob]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT


Your Honor,

WOAH, what's that? All of these stores have their buy and sell prices listed publicly often on the exact same sign but always within the same building??? Crazy! I have compiled a list of screenshots showing publicly accessible buy and sell signs in ALL of the shops that the Plaintiff has cited. This information is not private. I simply walked in and read a sign. To claim that there is some expectation of privacy and that the DEC somehow violated this privacy by releasing the DEC's own data that they generated without any help from these corporations is absurd. I encourage these CEOs to sue further at the release of these screenshots from their own stores because their tears give me immense pleasure. See screenshots below.

Furthermore, these corporations seem to have primary issue with the fact that their workers are now able to more easily find stores that pay them more fairly. The CPI was created for two purposes, 1) to better allow corporations to see what prices their competition is using so they can find better price points to maximize sales and 2) to better allow workers to see what prices corporations are buying goods for to maximize their income. These two goals work in tandem to maximize output and wages simultaneously. Just because private corporations don't like paying their workers more money does not mean that some crime has been committed.

Luckys:

Tipton (Only sell shop we could find is not protected by Minimum Commission):

Lemonade:

NexusChoice:

Woods Stock:

Vernicia:

Spectre:

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 day of September 2022

 

[WackJap]

You dimwitted twat this goes beyond the publicly available chest shops and their price ranges.

I'm sorry your honor I've lost my composure I'll respectfully take that fine.

 

[JoeGamer]

All screenshots which the Commonwealth has provided the court shall be struck from the record. This is new evidence and does not contribute in reference to this case.

The Supreme Court will now be in recess while the Justices break to discuss and write the decision.

 

[JoeGamer]

You dimwitted twat this goes beyond the publicly available chest shops and their price ranges.

I'm sorry your honor I've lost my composure I'll respectfully take that fine.

WackJap, you are held in direct contempt of this Court. I order the Department of Justice to fine WackJap $500 for his first offense. Do not speak in this case again unless summoned.

 

[HugeBob]

All screenshots which the Commonwealth has provided the court shall be struck from the record. This is new evidence and does not contribute in reference to this case.

The Supreme Court will now be in recess while the Justices break to discuss and write the decision.

Your honor, the State would like to strongly urge the Court to reconsider this decision. A key argument of the Plaintiff is that the DEC shared private information without the consent of private entities. The screenshots we presented are from publicly visible chestshops that are immediately apparent upon entering their shops. This is important as it demonstrates that there is no expectation of privacy for the price points that these stores use to buy and sell their products.

Thank you.

 

[xLayzur]

Your honor, with all due respect, it's coming up on two weeks since the courts went into recess to decide a verdict.

Seeking a reminder that this case wasn't possibly forgotten about.

 

[Nacho]

Verdict

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
The Corporate Security Union v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 15

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. By Secretary Trent releasing raw CPI data, the Secretary has hurt companies by allowing competing companies to mine raw CPI data and view what each company is selling at
2. By doing these actions, the Secretary willing violated his duty of office and released sensitive company information, which goes against the White Collar Crack Down Act

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The plaintiff does not show how the Secretary has violated his duty of office
2. The information (bob referred much to Info A) was not classified, and is subject to release.

III. THE COURT OPINION

Justice Nacholebraa delivered the opinion of the Court, which Justice JoeGamer and Chief Justice Krix joined.

In order for a suit to be filed damages had to of occurred. Within this case it is clear damages have been done. However, when discussing the actions pertaining to this case, the release of the monthly Consumer Price Index (CPI) it is within this court opinion that the information was not of a classified manner. In order to further understand the the court has broke down the information pertaining to the CPI into both forms of information gathered.

Information (A) - Buy and Sell prices | Information (B) - Who is buying and selling and where

Information A| Is information that any person could gather on their own with the proper amount of motivation and dedication to the task. This information is not considered to be that of a special nature and is considered to be public information.
Information B | Is information that would require inquiries to the specific individual to find out these buy patterns. Prior to the filing of this cases members of the public have always had the opportunity to submit a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to obtain the information as it pertains to a Government created document.

The information obtained within the CPI report was not originally assigned a classification which by default does not meet the defined requirements to obtain a automatic classification. A classification can be assigned by an individual executive officer with the creation of government related documents which is further defined within the Classification Act 5(4). The Secretary releasing the information publicly was not in violation of any classification. The information was not classified and thus, the secretary releasing the information is not conducting illegal activities. This was a government document, not a business document so the secretary had the ability to release the information included within the document.

Following the legal principles outlined above, the court will breakdown how each applies to the claims for relief.

Under the White Collar Crack Down Act, Corporate Espionage is defined to be “Any parties participating in, or accessory to the gathering, infiltration, or compromise of any sensitive company information that has not already been released to the public under the instruction of the company's controlling interest.” In order for a person/entity to violate this section of the White Collar Crack Down Act, one must be acting on the behalf of a company and attempt (successfully or unsuccessfully) to “gathering, infiltration, or compromise” any sensitive, nonpublic company information. However, this case is not about sensitive company documents, but unclassified government documents. Corporate Espionage is only defined for company information, not government documents. As mentioned above, this case is not about company information, but government documents, which are subject to the Classification Act, not the White Collar Crack Down Act.

Corruption is defined under the Corruption Act to be “To use a government position to act to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others to unfairly benefit oneself, or someone else.” There are two key phrases applicable to this case: “inconsistent with official duty” and unfairly benefit oneself, or someone else.” Nothing the secretary did was inconsistent with the duty of the Secretary of Education and Commerce. The information given to the public was unclassified. In fact, prior Consumer Price Index related information was not classified. Anyone in Redmont, with a Freedom of Information request, could legally obtain both Information A (which had already been released) and Information B. Since this information has always remained unclassified, it is not inconsistent with the duty of the secretary to release this information; it has always been open to the public. Similarly, if anyone could access this information, the secretary has not provided an unfair advantage to himself or anyone else. The secretary followed all proper procedure. While businesses may not like this information being released, as long as all information is obtained in a legal way and consistent with official duty, it cannot be considered corrutption.
This case is comes down to two government documents, one of which was unclassified and released to the public, and one which was unclassified and was not released to the public. Government documents are always subject to the Classification Act, and when a classification is not applicable in the default, all government documents will remain unclassified and subject to freedom of information. Nothing prevents a secretary from releasing unclassified. While companies may disagree with the classification or release of government documents, it is ultimately up to the Commonwealth to classify or not classify certain government documents.

IV. DECISION
The Court hereby rules in favor of the Commonwealth of Redmont. The Supreme Court thanks all for their time. China