Lawsuit: Adjourned The Commonwealth of Redmont v. ReinausPrinzzip [2021] SCR 20

[JoeGamer]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION


The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

ReinausPrinzzip
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Prosecution alleges criminal actions committed by the Defendant as follows:
ReinausPrinzzip used his position as an auditor for the department of state to leak state secrets classified as CABINET under the classification act to his colleague. These actions break Breach of Integrity - leaking CABINET level classified chats - and Corruption - To use a government position, elected or otherwise, to benefit one's private interests or corporate ventures.

PROSECUTING AUTHORITY REPORT
Statement from the Secretary of the Department of State xEndeavour
On 02 November 21, the Department of State terminated the defendant from their role as an Auditor.

During their tenure as an Auditor, it was discovered that the defendant used their position to leak information that was restricted to a CABINET classification.

The Department of State's Auditor Protocols (https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/auditor-guide.9568/) state that "Audit reporting can be significantly damaging to the Government's image, therefore it holds a security clearance of CABINET. Therefore, it is a serious offence to share audit information and will likely result in termination." The defendant used their elevated auditing permissions to obtain information which would otherwise be considered audit information from non-public channels. This information was then allegedly shared with members of the NPR.

The defendant claimed that this was an act of whistleblowing, as defined by the Whistleblower Act. After a Department investigation, we found no wrongdoing or illegal activity that would protect the defendant under whistleblower protections. Since this was not information concerning any illegal activity, rather it was against the defendant's own personal opinion that motivated the defendant to share this information, the Department recommends that charges for breaching integrity be laid. Even should the courts find that the assumption of illegal activities reasonable, the defendant shared far more than what could be reasonably considered whistleblowing.

The Department would also consider the Whistleblower Act not as a free pass to share information wherever the defendant likes, rather a protection for whistleblowing and reporting the illegal acts to the relevant authorities. As such, the defendant should have raised the suspected illegal activity with the Audit team, with the Secretary or Deputy Secretary, or with the police. The NPR is not in a position of authority to reasonably substantiate a claim of whistleblower.

Therefore, due to the abuse of their permissions in the defendant's capacity as an auditor to gain information which was of legal nature, the Department refers this incident to the Attorney General, recommending that the defendant be prosecuted with Breach of Confidence. Furthermore, if the court finds the nature of the evidence to be reasonably assumed illegal, the defendant shared far too much information with a non-authority figure to substantiate this claim.

The Department of State advises that the evidence be given in-confidence to the Court and the defendant due to the sensitive nature of the discussions about redevelopment and the effect this may have on the real estate market in the town.


I. PARTIES
1. ReinausPrinzzip (Former DOS auditor)
2. Xerxesmc (witness)
3. xEndeavour (DOS Secretary)
4. Heather (Auditor)
5. pugbandit (Witness)
6. Rurge (Mayor of Oakridge Bay)
7. CursedOcean (Deputy Mayor of Oakridge Bay)

II. FACTS
1. ReinausPrinzzip was one of three DOS auditors who had access to Oakridge Bay Government discord channels
2. At the time the three DOS members who had access to those channels was ReinausPrinzzip, Heather, and xEndeavour
3. Auditors are given CABINET clearance in order to do their job.
4. Reinaus took pictures of these classified chats and sent them to NPR Party Council members.
5. Xerxesmc made a ticket in the Oakridge Bay discord with Classified documents
6. Xerxesmc made a Department of State ticket where he states the following
We (the people of Oakridge) have had many concerns over the past few days about how they've been going about things. They have been basically doing whatever they want, which sure we know Oakridge needs a lot of help and Marty admitted to being overwhelmed and started taking suggestions more. I thought this was settled and was waiting to see what they would come up with, even opening a ticket to give suggestions/feedback
Come to find out that a DOS employee in the council chats have shared this under whist blower to have these matters investigated. All of this was stated after our conversations with the new leadership earlier this morning

Some major concerns that stick out are Marty and Rurge messing around (1st screenshot) talking about displacing everyone in the Town. Whether it is legal or not to do so, it is extremely concerning to hear about. Another thing, although this is not party vs party, the fact that almost the entire council is ICP and random ICP people are also in the chat voting is extremely concerning as well. They are able to pass anything they want as they will clearly get a majority in what they want.
I presume they will start deleting chats from this point as I confronted them about it and was basically treated as if I didnt know what I was talking about, you could say gaslit lmao
He also posted the classified chats.
7. Xerxesmc claimed “a DOS employee” had whistleblower protection.
8. As stated in the Secretary of State’s brief, an DOS investigation came to the conclusion that Reinaus broke DOS policy and broke §7 - Breach of Integrity under the Classification Act.
9. The act of spreading private government chats to those without proper clearance is a threat to Redmont’s National Security.
10. The only members that can see the mayoral office in Oakridge is Mayor, Deputy Mayor, President, Vice President, Chief of Staff, Department of State auditors, and server staff (In the provided image, the Attorney General was given perms to be able to access the ticket information, this perm will be removed at the conclusion of this case).


III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. Reinaus is hereby charged with breaking §7 - Breach of Integrity of the Classification Act which states “Breach of Integrity Where an individual shares information of classified nature when unauthorised. Per Offence: Maximum fine of $20,000” as Reinaus has shared CABINET classified chats without the authority
2. Reinaus is hereby charged with breaking §16.1 - Corruption of Rules and Laws which states “To use a government position, elected or otherwise, to benefit one's private interests or corporate ventures. By applying for a position or being elected into a position in government, the player agrees to serve the server over themselves” as Reinaus has used his government position to benefit his private political interest

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. $25,000 total in fines ($20,000 from Breach of Integrity and $5,000 for corruption)
2. A removal from any public office for 2 months.
3. A permanent injunction to not allow ReinausPrinzzip to sit in the Department of State
4. A temporary injunction preventing ReinausPrinzzip from holding any leadership position in any government department for 4 months

THE STATE REQUEST A CLOSED COURT AS THE EVIDENCE INVOLVED IS A MATTER OF NATIONAL SECURITY AND HAVE BEEN LABELED AS CABINET 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.

 

[Westray]

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

The Defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of the The Commonwealth of Redmont v. ReinausPrinzipp. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment.

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.

As for the facilitation of classified evidence during this case, each party is asked to review the process listed within the Classified Information section of the Court Rules and Procedures.​

 

[Hamhamham420]

Fake news

 

[Westray]

Fake news

You have not been summoned to this case nor have you been named as a party or counsel to this case. Given your stature as a former Representative, you should be aware of the laws at the least, if not court procedures. Therefore, I find you in contempt. Please do not speak in a court case whereby you have not been summoned.

The Department of Justice is asked to fine Hamhamham420 a total of $250 for his first offence of contempt of court.

 

[Westray]

I would like to ask that the Defendant responds as soon as possible given that it would be rather unfortunate for a case of such measure, being one of the Supreme Court, to be granted default judgement.

I will be setting a deadline of 24 hours for the Defendant, given that it has already been well over the allocated 48 hours.

 

[Westray]

Given the allocated time of 48 hours and the additional 24 hours has surpassed, the Supreme Court will be convening tomorrow to deliver a verdict of default judgement. After multiple warnings and notices from the court we have not gotten a response from the Defendant and will be moving forward.

Thank you.

 

[Westray]

Verdict

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Case No. 11-2021-05-02

I. PROSECUTION'S POSITION
1. The Prosecution alleges that the Defendant used their position as auditor to unlawfully share private information in the town of Oakridge's discord.
2. The Prosecution claims that since the Defendant was granted a CABINET level security clearance as auditor, he violated the classification act by sharing screenshots that were only accessible through an auditor-only role in the Oakridge discord.
3. The Prosecution claims that the Defendant shared this information with his party to advance his own private political interests.

II. DEFENDANTS POSITION
1. The Defendant was allocated well over 48 hours and given an additional 24 hours to respond to this case. They did not provide an answer to complaint within the adequate time given.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. It is the opinion of the court that we make this decision on a default judgement within the consideration of only the arguments presented by the Prosecution, since the Defendant has failed to respond to the court summons, even after multiple warnings to do so.
2. Taking into consideration the point above, it is the view of the court that the Defendant is reasonably guilty of the charges they were accused of, noting that we believe a modified sentencing is necessary.
3. For the charge of Breach of Integrity, we will be fining the Defendant a reduced amount than asked by the Prosecution, given that the information exposed only has the potential to cause some collateral damage, and not significant collateral damage. This is because his position only classified matters as 'CABINET' levelled clearance, and not the highest, 'SECRET' levelled clearance, pursuant of the Classification Act.
4. Considering the policies of the Department of State, and the integral nature that Auditors are bound to serve as trusted individuals to impartially review departments and towns, we believe that the Defendant deserves the full charge of corruption. It is clear that they put their own private interests to benefit themselves in political corruption whereby they shared private information with their political party instead of reporting any issues they saw to an integral entity, such as to the Department of State or the Court of Redmont.
5. Given the Defendant's abuse of power and status as an Auditor, we agree with the permanent injunction to prevent him from sitting within the Department of State. No town, department, or entity otherwise, should be fearful of political corruption and leaking from such an integral position.
6. The Court does not agree with the injunction to prevent the Defendant from holding a leadership position in any government department for 4 months, because we believe that the sentencing already granted is adequate enough. Furthermore, we believe that barring him from public office for only 2 months, yet barring him from department leaderships for significantly longer, would be incredibly unjust and contradictory.
7. Given that the Defendant did not respond to this case, the court would also like to call upon an investigation into whether or not an attorney was representing him, and if he received inadequate counsel.

Remarks from the Hon. Westray:

The Defendant's failure to respond to court summons has left us little option in making these decisions. There is tremendous disregard when the court has given more than enough time for a response, and an individual accused of such serious irreparable charges has failed to abide by such summons.

Based on the evidence presented, we made a decision that I believe has been more than justified. It is the duty of an auditor to act as effectively an impartial fact-checker when it comes to reviewing the actions of departments and towns. The trust that these departments and towns give the Department of State is integral and it is important that such trust is not undermined by a breach of integrity.

While undoubtedly I believed that there may have been more of a case here for the Defendant, he failed to respond after a strenuous amount of time has been granted. Given the Defendant's stature as a Representative and longtime member of multiple leadership positions, I would have expected him and or his counsel to give this case much more consideration. It has been over 5 days since the summons, and not a single answer to this respective complaint has been given, even after multiple warnings were put in place. I can only interpret this negligence as an omittance of guilt or as a severe failure of the Defendant's counsel.

- Westray, Chief Justice

Remarks from the Hon. SumoMC:

I believe that the AG presented a strong case, although I truly wish that the defense would of presented their side. I would like to ask the RBA to investigate the conduct of the defenses council Aladeen and Can_s as they failed to not only do their job but also ensure that the defendant was adequately defended.

- SumoMC, Justice

IV. DECISION

The Supreme Court hereby finds the Defendant, ReinausPrinzzip, guilty in of 1 count of breach of integrity, and 1 count of corruption, on a default judgement.

We have determined the following sentence:
(a) $10,000 Fine for Breach of Integrity
(b) $5000 Fine for Corruption
(c) Immediate Removal from Public Office for 2 Months for Corruption
Thank you to the Prosecution for their time in presenting these arguments.