Lawsuit: Adjourned UtCowboy21 Vs. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 31

Featured Businesses

Status
Not open for further replies.

Westray

Citizen
Former President
Education & Commerce Department
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
Westray
Westray
willow-res
After such respective discussions in the Department of State ticket, I consulted briefly with the Attorney General about the matter. As expressed in the Commonwealth's defence, the members of our legal team have provided reasoning behind the denial of the request and how such records remain solely a relationship between individual and government, protecting the privacy of citizens.
 

UtahCowboy20

Esquire
Court Staff
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
Closing Argument of the Plaintiff

Your Honor, throughout this trial the Defense has failed to provide adequate answers to combat my claims. I implore you to weigh the facts of this case.

What is a government document? While the Defense has attempted to construe the definition, it cannot be changed. A government document is any document that is published by the government OR a government entity. It does not matter what is written on it! If a government entity wrote it, it is a government document.

The Defense has claimed that Criminal Records are not a government record but are a personal record. This is a false statement in every sense. At worst it is a blatant lie to the public. If it was a personal record, it would not be written, published, and stored by the government to be made available only upon request. A Criminal Record is a list of offenses against the Commonwealth. Offenses against society. Offenses against the people of Redmont. The PEOPLE have a right to know. They have a right to know if they are hiring an individual convicted of embezzling funds. They have a right to know if the General Contractor they are hiring has been charged with fraud. It is not private anymore than the crimes that were committed were private.

But one could claim that these charges could be used for slander, or to deny employment. Why should an individual that was convicted of a crime that occurred months ago be haunted by one mistake? They don’t have to be. That is what expunging a record is for!

The Defense has stated that this suit is my attempt to manipulate the judiciary to “create law" as stated in the Defense’s Motion to Dismiss. Nowhere have I asked the Judiciary to write or amend a law. Because what I am asking is already supported in the existing laws.

Seven times, the Defense and parties of the Defense have cited the Executive Standards Act. Claiming that the Act clearly states that ONLY the criminal may request their own record and non-others. But the Defense has failed to show where it states that one cannot request the record of another. The fact is, that the Executive Standards Act only mentions Criminal Records twice. In the following phrase, Section 8 Line 5, “A citizen has the right to know their own criminal records which must be facilitated by a Sergeant or Department official within 7 days. Citizens cannot be charged with a crime if there is no criminal record of such.” It does NOT state that another individual is prohibited to access the record of another. It merely states that one cannot be charged and convicted of a crime if they don't know the charges. Then it lights the path to access those charges. But it also does not state that an individual is given the right to access the record of another either.

However, there was an act that was passed previously to the Executive Standards Act, The Classification Act. The Classification Act stated that ALL publications/documents of the government shall be assigned a classification. Those publications that were not assigned a classification are declared “Unclassified.” So therefore Criminal Records are an Unclassified Government Publication. Withheld and stored by a Government entity. However, this alone isn't enough to grant private persons access to another's record.

The last section of the Classifications Acts Section 4; amended November 14th, 2021, the Freedom of Information clause, sheds more light on the subject. Line 2 outlines “Freedom of Information requests can be made by a congressional chamber, congressional committee, Courts, and/or individuals.” That applies, an individual made the request. Subsection 2.a declared, “ A Freedom of Information request made by an individual is, made towards the department of state. The department of state is then expected to make a reasonable attempt to, provide all non-classified requested information. Providing the request is reasonable.”
ALL “non-classified requested information.” No classification has been given for Criminal Records. Therefore the request fits within this description. In addition, this section of the act was violated twice. The Department of State is to handle and deliver the request. Yet the Department of State told me to seek my answers elsewhere.

This is the law, what the Executive offices’ operated on was Departmental Policy. Policy that has violated the law and violated the right of a citizen requesting transparency. Where in the Law of our great nation has it been written that Executive Policy supersedes the Law? Where in our Constitution does it state that the Executive branch has the authority to interpret the law? Yet this is what has happened. Even after the law was clearly explained, they denied it.

Your Honor, I have proven that a Criminal Record is indeed a Government Document as it is published and written by the Government. I have proven that it was not assigned a Classification, nor has the defense claimed it was classified. I have proven that unclassified, Government publications can be requested by individuals and by law the Government is required to make an effort to deliver all pertinent Unclassified publications.

Your Honor, with this, the Plaintiff rests its case.
 

drew_hall

Citizen
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
Drew_Hall
Drew_Hall
oakridge-res
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

UtahCowboy20
PLAINTIFF

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
DEFENDANT

CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honor, opposing counsel,

As noted throughout the trial, it is the position of the government, as codified within the law, that an individual may request their own criminal record, but it is not outlined that a criminal record is open for anyone to access. The Plaintiff has stated that “...the Defense has failed to show where it states that one cannot request the record of another.” but rather for that reason is why the government does not allow just anyone to access an individual’s record. The Plaintiff has painted a picture of negligence across governmental departments by the refusal of this request, but has failed to recognize that while doing so he has proven just the point the defense is, and has been, making: the government followed the law to the best of its ability with respect to individual security and information, codified law, and the constitution.

The Plaintiff is right in his assertion that businesses have a right to know the criminal history of potential employees, and many do just that. Businesses may require criminal records to obtain employment, and these criminal records would be supplied under the authorization of the respective individual it pertains to. However, businesses do not have a right to access an individual’s personal information against their wishes or without their knowledge.

The Plaintiff has continually claimed to be supported by the law, but if that were the case his own points would not be contradicting one another. The Plaintiff has alleged that by being redirected by the Department of State that it was a violation of the Classification Act, but the reason is quite simple: The Plaintiff’s view does not match up with codified law. Under codified law the Department of Justice is to handle the release of criminal records, a point noted by the Plaintiff himself when quoting Section 8 Line 5 of the Executive Standards Act., stating the release of criminal records must be “...facilitated by a Sergeant or Department official…” The Department of State does not deal with the release of criminal records, and must go through the DoJ to even gain access, if granted.

The Plaintiff has also alleged that by not receiving the criminal record, the State Department violated the Classification Act. The Department of State worked to the best of its ability to accommodate the Plaintiff, but were not willing to violate the law in order to do so. It is also being alleged that the government was working off of department policy, and even believes that policy to supersede the law, as well as the constitution. As noted above, this could not be further from the truth. The Plaintiff does not dictate how the law is applied and how the government is to operate alone, despite what he would like this court to believe. The government, in order to function, must, at times, apply discretionary power in order to address areas which are not clearly codified within the law, such as this. Operating on its discretionary power, the government refused to hand over a document containing information pertaining to a private individual to someone other than that respective individual in an effort to preserve constitutional rights, not violate them. Additionally, as required under law, the State Department made a more-than-reasonable attempt to deliver what the Plaintiff was asking of them, especially considering the request had previously been denied by the correct department for it.

To conclude, the Plaintiff has only made the case that the government operated with an individual’s constitutional rights as a first priority, and worked within what is outlined within the law in order to do so. While the Plaintiff is correct in many assertions of the Classifications Act, it is irrelevant to this case as an individual’s private information and recorded interactions with the government does not fall under any classification, but rather is a safeguarded document to be shared only with those authorized by its owner to do so.

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 28th day of April 2022
 

nnmc

Citizen
Redmont Bar Association
nnmc
nnmc
attorney
This court is now in recess, while I write the verdict. This may take up to a week, given the complexity of the case and my busy schedule IRL.
 

nnmc

Citizen
Redmont Bar Association
nnmc
nnmc
attorney

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
UtahCowboy21 v Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 31

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. Criminal records are records held and owned by the government, not individuals. They are thus government records.
2. The Executive Standards Act does not forbid individuals from obtaining the criminal records of others.
3. The lack of a classification for criminal records under the Classification Act means that criminal records are unclassified and thus public.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. To obtain the criminal record of an individual requires the consent of that individual.
2. The Executive Standards Act requires that DOJ handles criminal records, instead of the DOS. The plaintiff's request for the DOS to provide criminal records is thus unactionable.
3. The executive branch may exercise discretionary power to protect constitutional rights, which would include protecting the privacy of citizens and their criminal records

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. The Executive Standards Act is silent on whether or not citizens can access the criminal records of others. The court will not make inferences on what this Act intended to happen if a citizen requested another citizen's criminal record.
2. The Classification Act states that any government information not assigned a classification is to be considered "unclassified" and thus public. Furthermore, the same Act creates classifications on the basis of damage to government and national security. Criminal records can hardly be considered a threat to the government and national security. Since criminal records are created and maintained by the government for the public good, it is reasonable to consider such records to be government records, and thus subject to the Classification Act.
3. Freedom of information requests are handled by the DOS and criminal records are managed by the DOJ. Although a freedom of information request for criminal records would require the involvement and cooperation of both departments, such an effort can be considered within the bounds of a "reasonable attempt" in accordance with the Classification Act. The executive branch regularly has multiple departments work together. Inter-department cooperation is neither an undue burden nor particularly difficult. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect the DOS to make a "reasonable attempt" to work with the DOJ to provide criminal records for a freedom of information request.

IV. DECISION
1. I hereby rule in favor of the plaintiff.
2. The emergency injunction from the beginning of this case is now lifted.
3. I am ordering the following permanent injunction: when a person requests the criminal records of any person via a freedom of information request, the Commonwealth of Redmont is to make a "reasonable attempt" in accordance with the Classification Act to provide the requested criminal records. This "reasonable attempt" shall include any necessary cooperation between executive departments and offices.
4. I order the defendant to pay the plaintiff $650 in legal fees.
5. I order the State Department to make a "reasonable attempt" to provide the criminal record of wetc to the plaintiff, as the plaintiff had previously made such a freedom of information request. This "reasonable attempt" shall include any necessary cooperation between executive departments and offices.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top