Lawsuit: Adjourned juniperfig v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 91

[juniperfig]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

juniperfig
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The Speaker of the House deemed two of my Freedom of Information requests unreasonable under 8.3.c of the Classified Materials Act. He seems to be under the impression that specific dates and keywords are needed to make a request reasonable (P-001 to P-004). I believe my requests were reasonable, and thus am appealing the decision to the Federal Court under 8.7.a of the Classified Materials Act.

I. PARTIES
1. juniperfig
2. Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS
1. I filed a Freedom of Information request with Congress as follows: "I would like to request all Congressional discussion regarding the Classified Materials Act (CMA), including any drafts with different names." (P-001)
2. Speaker of the House Omegabiebel denied this request unless I gave him "cutoff dates" for the request. (P-001, P-002)
3. I filed an additional Freedom of Information request with Congress as follows: "I would like to submit a freedom of information request for the following information: The date that the "Classified Materials Act", or any drafts of which, was first discussed in the Congressional discord server; The date that the "Classified Materials Act", or any drafts of which, was last discussed in the Congressional discord server." (P-002)
4. This additional request was denied under 8.3.c of the CMA (P-003).
5. I then modified my original FOI to include cutoff dates as requested (P-004).
6. This modified request was denied under 8.3.c of the CMA (P-004).

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Freedom of Information requests may be denied under 8.3.c of the CMA if they are "so vague or broad as to be unfulfillable in practical terms". I do not believe my requests were so vague or broad as to be unfulfillable in practical terms. Congressional discussion of a specific bill is not vague nor broad. Two specific dates is not vague nor broad.
2. CMA 8.7.a states I may appeal denied FOI requests to the Federal Court.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The Federal Court to review my request and determine if the requests were reasonable, and if so, order the full release of the requested information.

V. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: P-004

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 of September 2025.

 

[ameslap]

Writ of Summons

@asexualdinosaur is required is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of juniperfig v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 91

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]

Your honour,

I came at the request of the court

 

[ameslap]

Welcome to the court all!

Time to leave and I require you both to come to my chambers now.

 

[ameslap]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
UPDATE ON CASE

To those watching, the judiciary has decided to do FOI Appeals in a similar fashion to how we process warrants. Both parties are briefing the court on their stances, and this will be a conversational type of case where the court can ask questions and come to a comprehensive and efficient ruling on the matter.

The transcription of the case shall be posted here along with my ruling after the fact.

 

[ameslap]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Juniperfig v. Commonwealth of Redmont - [2025] FCR 91
FOI Appeal / Civil Action

I. BACKGROUND
The Plaintiff requested all Congressional discussions and drafts regarding the Classified Materials Act and was denied for being unreasonablly vague or broad per the CMA §8-3-c.

The Defense agreed with the Plaintiff that this request should have been fulfilled.

II. THE COURT OPINION
First, the Classified Materials Act does not define the terms “vague” or “broad,” so we must do so to understand if the request was unreasonable.

On Vague: This court defines vague in the context of the Classified Materials Act as a request that lacks sufficient detail to identify what information is being sought. This includes unclear subjects and missing timeframes.

The request in question was not vague. It had a clear subject, that being the Congressional discussions on the Classified Materials Act. It is important to note that the Speaker asked for “keywords” to help guide their search. The court agrees with the counselors that not providing keywords does not make a request vague or unreasonable. The requester will only know the bare minimum of what they are trying to search for; otherwise, they probably would not need to make a FOI request in the first place. It is true that without a time period defined to search within, a request can become too vague or too broad. The Plaintiff was correct to pause their initial request and submit a new FOI request to find out when the first and last instance of the subject was discussed. That being said, a petitioner should not have to resort to additional FOI requests to get a date. The processors should ask clarifying questions or use context to determine if a time period is implied.

On Broad: We will define broad in the Classified Materials Act as a request that, while clear in subject, covers too wide a scope. This includes requests without limits on timeframe or multiple subjects.

The request in question started broad. After further clarity and other requests to narrow the scope, the Speaker should have approved the request. Furthermore, the Speaker stated in evidence that there were not that many messages to go through, so broadness does not fit.

On General Practicality: The court agrees with the Plaintiff and the Defense that this request is a practical one. Evidence provided shows the Speaker saying that an FOI request is not an investigation, but it is. The court agrees with the Plaintiff that the Government is required to comply with all reasonable FOI requests to the “fullest extent possible”; a simple search may work, but it also may need more time and effort. The Court suggests that the Government look into additional staff if it cannot process reasonable FOI requests as required by law.

III. DECISION

1. I hereby rule in favor of the Plaintiff and approve the appeal. Congress shall have 7 days from this ruling to comply with the request.

The Federal Court thanks all involved. This Court is now adjourned.

 

[ameslap]

TRANSCRIPT LINK