Lawsuit: Pending malka v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 87

[aubunny]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


malka
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

The commonwealth has failed to uphold its own independent checks and balances in the government, and as such, the system as a whole is at risk of total collapse of trust and function within all branches of government. The constitution has statutes in place specifically to avoid the level of distrust and dishonesty found within the Judiciary today.

I. PARTIES
1. malka
2. Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS
1. The Classified Materials Act allows for Congress to overturn denied FOIs against the judiciary
2. The Judiciary is not required to act in an unbiased manner
3. FCR 81, at the date of August 13th, was an ongoing case
4. FCR 81, if not dismissed, could return to the Supreme Court upon appeal.
5. The constitution states that "Judicial power is vested in the courts."
6. The Federal Court has "Appellate Jurisdiction"
7. Section (13) of part 4 of the constitution reads: "Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status."
8. Section (15) of part 4 of the Constitution reads: "Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure."
9. Before the appeal of the original classification act, the power of Judicial FOI appeals was vested within the Federal Court.
10. Judges within the federal court are to act with no prejudice.
11. The act of remanding to a different court is not the delivery of a verdict.
12. SCR 11[2025] Is functionally the same case as FCR 81.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. By moving the power of appellate review of FOI requests from the Federal Court to Congress, they have violated the Commonwealth's constitutional right Against Unreasonable Search or Seizure by Congress, which has no duty of care to uphold the self-given Judicial power.
2. This power and lack of unbiased decision have already reared their ugly head, as they have then violated their own law by approving the Judicial communications in the SCR of the FCR 81 [at the time SCR 11] case, which was ongoing at the time. This resulted in conversations that happened in regards to an ongoing case to be revealed to the public, including the plaintiff of said case. This activity has resulted in the spoliation of the case and a breach of judicial privacy of rightfully classified information. This would not have happened under an impartial judge.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The Classified Materials Act is struck as unconstitutional.
2. A public apology by the Speaker of the House and President of the Senate for their motions towards the FOI approval.
3. Legal Fees, subject to the judge.

V: WITNESSES

1) Smallfries - Supreme Court Justice targeted by biased unclassification of information
2) xEndeavour - Author of the original Classification Act.

VI: EVIDENCE

1) For the sake of brevity, we motion to include the entirety of FCR 81 under the title P-01

2)

Spoiler: P-02

, Particularly, the date.

Spoiler: P-03

Spoiler: P-04

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 19st day of August, 2025