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

[UtCowboy]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
LEGAL ACTION


UtahCowboy
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont (Department of Justice, Department of State)

COMPLAINT
On Wendsday, April 13th 2022, I, UtahCowboy, filed for a release of information from the Department of Justice which was subsequently denied. I then filed for a release of the same information with the Department of State which was also denied.
I intend to prove that by denying my request of information the defendant violated the Classifications Act.

I. PARTIES
1. Myself, UtahCowboy20 AKA, UtCowboy21
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont, Department of Justice, Department of State, Office of the President

II. FACTS
1. A request of information was filed with the DoJ, for all recorded interactions between the DoJ and "wetc." This request was denied.
2. A request of information was filed with the DoS, for all recorded interactions between the DoJ and "wetc." This request was denied.


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. By denying my request, the executive powers have violated the Classification Act, Section 10 Freedom of Information

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. A complete, unabridged, unaltered, record of the interactions of “wetc” and the Department of Justice.
2. A change in departmental policy regarding the request of information, in accordance with the Classification Act. (All requests go through the DoS.)
3. I request $650 to compensate for Legal Costs and the time of having to file a release of information lawsuit.

I would like to submit the following items into evidence; as to show that the aforementioned events occurred.

Plaintiff Exhibit A
Department of Justice Ticket Request Transcript (Link)

Plaintiff Exhibit B
Department if State Ticket Request Transcript (Link)

Plaintiff Exhibit C
Department of State Ticket Request Transcript (Link)
Involving the Office of the President


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 13th day of April, 2022

 

[dygyee]

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

The Attorney General is required to appear before the court in the case of UtahCowboy20 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 31. 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.​

 

[UtCowboy]

Your honor, If I may. I would like to request an emergency injunction, to assure that the Criminal Record of wetc is protected, to prevent subsequent deletion or alterations. I would request that the current record, up to todays date is sealed and a copy of the record is given to the court.

 

[dygyee]

While there is no need to give the court a copy of wetc's criminal record, I will be approving this emergency injunction. Until this case is over, no one is able to remove or alter anything from wetc's current criminal record. Furthermore until this case is over, wetc is not allowed to file an expungement request.

However if wetc commits a crime during this case, that is allowed to be added to his criminal record.

The Attorney general has approximately 45 hours left to respond.

 

[UtCowboy]

While there is no need to give the court a copy of wetc's criminal record, I will be approving this emergency injunction. Until this case is over, no one is able to remove or alter anything from wetc's current criminal record. Furthermore until this case is over, wetc is not allowed to file an expungement request.

However if wetc commits a crime during this case, that is allowed to be added to his criminal record.

Thank you, your honor

 

[UtCowboy]

Your honor, we have now past the times set forth by the Writ of Summons. I would like to request that this case now be moved to a verdict. As to not waist the courts time any further.

 

[dygyee]

@drew_hall if you do not appear soon, I have to rule in favor of the plaintiff.

 

[drew_hall]

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

UtahCowboy20
PLAINTIFF

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
DEFENDANT

MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The Plaintiff has fundamentally misinterpreted the Classification Act as the Freedom of Information Request allows him access to government records whenever. Criminal records do not fall under formal classifications, rather are records that pertain to the individual. The individual has a personal right to view their record and the right to seek expungement of that record.

2. The Plaintiff has failed to cite what clause was violated under the Classification Act. The Plaintiff has claimed the Executive has violated an entire section, meanwhile subsections are referencing Congress. The case is frivolous because it would imply the Executive is subject to legislation impacting Congress.

3. The claim is in contravention of the Executive Standards Act. Noted in §7.5, the department is only legally required to provide the record of an individual to that respective individual. If the Plaintiff wishes to view anyone's criminal record from a FOI request, they should seek out legislative remedies in the terms of a bill, rather than ask the court to create law.

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.

(The words defendant and complaint should be changed in case the motion is to dismiss a counterclaim.)

DATED: This 16th day of April 2022

 

[UtCowboy]

Your honor I must object. The Attorney has had ample time to respond to this matter. He has had time to respond to such cases as Greenish9 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 30, he has been present in the discord forums. In addition the Attorney General is not the only authorized council for the Commonwealth. The Office of the Attorney General retains two prosecutors. Both of which had the authority to respond to the court. Lastly, President Westray himself had been present in Legal forums, responding to this matter. President Westray has not before shied for defending the state as its representation however; he has chosen not to attend this session, knowing that the time of the summons was nearing. This was wanton neglect as well as an insult to your court and authority. Evidence of this is available upon request.

 

[dygyee]

I will be rejecting this motion to dismiss because of the following:

1. The Plaintiff's interpretation of the Classification Act may be different than the Attorney General's, different than the court's and different than the person who wrote it. This case is in the court because two parties can't agree on an interpretation, and that's what the court is for.

2. The Plaintiff has very clearly cited a section of an act that he believes is good reason for his claims for relief and it's not for the Defendant to say what is and isn't specific enough.

3. The Plaintiff has not asked the court to create a law, they have simply asked the court to interpret a law that already exists that he believes the government is violating by not giving him wetc's criminal record.

Finally Drew, I would like you to know that your tardiness and rudeness has been noted, and that it is not acceptable in court, and it won't fly in the future. This court understands that there is life outside of DC especially because today was Good Friday, however in the future you should always ask the court for an extension, and it most cases they will grant it. Drew if you are even the slightest bit late during the rest of this court case, I will be ruling in a default judgement in favor of the Plaintiff, so please be mindful of the time, and this court has also noted the fact that there was no apology to the court, nor the Plaintiff in your motion to dismiss.

We will move onto opening statements. The Plaintiff has 48 hours to present their opening statement followed by the Attorney General who will have exactly 48 hours from the time the the Plaintiff posts his opening statement.

 

[UtCowboy]

Your honor, I appreciate your response. However, I respectfully propose a motion to recuse. Your honor, my highest concern is for the integrity of these proceedings. It is my duty as an attorney to do what is best for my cases. Your honor, you have come very close to breaching Judicial Conduct by responding to a public forum on a matter of a case that was currently in session. In addition, in my time as a member of the legal community of Redmont, I have yet to see, nor been made aware, of an instance where an extension was gifted without prior request. It is within my view that this may be a displayed bias to the favor of the defendant. Lastly, your honor has ignored my objection to the extension. This is also an unethical action. I humbly request that you grant my motion to recuse and allow another Judge that has not displayed what can be interpreted as a Judicial Bias towards the Defendant. Lastly, another member of the judiciary would be able to view the proceedings thus far with a fresh set of eyes and analyze the current case prior to the motion to dismiss; seeing as your honor has dismissed the motion, proving that the motion to dismiss lacks foundation.

 

[dygyee]

Before I rule on the motion for recusal, could you please expand on how I was close to breaking judicial conduct by clarifying what I did, and where it says that it's against judicial conduct?

 

[UtCowboy]

Firstly your honor, in the Judicial Standards Act it clearly states that Ex Parte communications is a breach of Judicial Conduct and grounds for Recusal. When you commented and tagged, myself, a party in this current case, in a public forums, when not in a conversation where you were party. It breached Judicial Conduct. Furthermore, you commented on a ongoing legal proceeding, to which you presided, in the public square. This in itself is a breach of legal ethics.

 

[dygyee]

Ex parte communication is defined by DC as communicating with involved parties outside of official channels. The DC discord channel is an official discord channel of DC, and furthermore what I said in the DC discord channel was not specific to this case, it was a general statement about past court cases as well as a clarification to a police officer who was unsure if they could add to wetc's criminal record if he committed a crime.

I still truly believe that I am unbiased in this case, and that I have not breached judicial conduct, and for those reasons, I will be rejecting the motion for recusal. UtCowboy 21 has 48 hours from now to post their opening statement.

 

[UtCowboy]

Your honor, I wish to call upon my right to a second recusal request and have it reviewed by the Supreme Court. While the DC Legal Discord channel is an official forum of the game of Democracy Craft . It is NOT an official forum of the judiciary. As a judge who must remain unbias and cannot comment on a case unless it is in a designated forum with the involved parties, the legal discord channel does not provide that sufficient coverage. I now pass my recusal request to the Supreme Court of Redmont as I do not have faith that your honor is an impartial judge in this case.

 

[End]

Verdict

Ex parte communication. Ex parte communication is grounds for recusal to protect both the parties in a case and the institution from actual or perceived impartiality. The Judicial Officer Professional Standards Guide provides the following in relation to ex parte communication:

Every conversation you have, every message you send, and every word you write in relation to a case needs to stay in the court case thread or on the court discord. Communicating outside official channels with individuals involved in a case is known as ex parte communication.​

I am satisfied that Judge Dygyee has not breached actual or perceived impartiality because they were speaking to the world in a forum which was available to both parties. However, these were not official channels in the context of the law and Court policy. Official channels in this instance concern the court thread or court Discord. For this reason, I will be finding that ex parte communication has taken place due to public discussions taking place while the case was underway.

Extention Requests. The Courts of Redmont are considerably fluid when it comes to extensions and this is supported by court policy and common law. The 48 hour response time is a court-directed deadline where:

Parties are required to respond to the court within 48 hours of being summonsed, subpoenaed, or to any other request for information or communication addressed to the party unless otherwise provided by the presiding officer.​

I will emphasise the unless otherwise provided by the presiding officer in this instance. The court's primary objective is to hear cases from differing perspectives to come to an informed decision. This court-directed response time is tool to assist the court in achieving this in a time efficient manner. Contempt of court is generally the court's chosen method of remedying a tardy response. The Judge is the master of their own court room and we pass on this discretion to the Judge to make an informed decision based on the facts of the case. While it was poor form to not request the extension prior to the deadline, the reality is that it was Good Friday and I am satisfied that the Judge addressed the tardiness appropriately when they applied an extension retrospectively.

Decision. I will be recusing Judge Dygyee on grounds of ex parte communication.

 

[UtCowboy]

Thank you Chief Justice for your swift verdict. How do we proceed?

 

[UtCowboy]

Verdict

Ex parte communication. Ex parte communication is grounds for recusal to protect both the parties in a case and the institution from actual or perceived impartiality. The Judicial Officer Professional Standards Guide provides the following in relation to ex parte communication:

Every conversation you have, every message you send, and every word you write in relation to a case needs to stay in the court case thread or on the court discord. Communicating outside official channels with individuals involved in a case is known as ex parte communication.​

I am satisfied that Judge Dygyee has not breached actual or perceived impartiality because they were speaking to the world in a forum which was available to both parties. However, these were not official channels in the context of the law and Court policy. Official channels in this instance concern the court thread or court Discord. For this reason, I will be finding that ex parte communication has taken place due to public discussions taking place while the case was underway.

Extention Requests. The Courts of Redmont are considerably fluid when it comes to extensions and this is supported by court policy and common law. The 48 hour response time is a court-directed deadline where:

Parties are required to respond to the court within 48 hours of being summonsed, subpoenaed, or to any other request for information or communication addressed to the party unless otherwise provided by the presiding officer.​

I will emphasise the unless otherwise provided by the presiding officer in this instance. The court's primary objective is to hear cases from differing perspectives to come to an informed decision. This court-directed response time is tool to assist the court in achieving this in a time efficient manner. Contempt of court is generally the court's chosen method of remedying a tardy response. The Judge is the master of their own court room and we pass on this discretion to the Judge to make an informed decision based on the facts of the case. While it was poor form to not request the extension prior to the deadline, the reality is that it was Good Friday and I am satisfied that the Judge addressed the tardiness appropriately when they applied an extension retrospectively.

Decision. I will be recusing Judge Dygyee on grounds of ex parte communication.

Thank you Chief Justice for your swift verdict. How do we proceed?

 

[nnmc]

I will be taking over this case. @UtahCowboy20 and @drew_hall please provide your opening statements within 48 hours from now.

I know dygyee had previously only requested the plaintiff's opening statement. However, the Court Rules and Procedures page no longer specifies an order for the presentation of statements. In the interest of time, I would like both opening statements by the same deadline.

 

[UtCowboy]

Opening Statement of the
Plaintiff

​

Your Honor, the council for the defense would have you believe that this is open and shut. I beg to differ. The core issue that I will present for the court has long plagued our land. Accountability. Does the government truly do its best to be transparent and accountable to the people, the voters? I say no. Not until there is proof readily available to the public that they fulfill their duties. How does the government provide that proof? Through the release of government records. While not all government records are suitable for the release to the public. It has been clearly outlined what is suitable. The Classifications Act has made these answers clear to us.

Classifications Act Section 5 outlines what government documents are unsuitable for release and outlines what information is available to whom. The classifications are as followed;

1. Information that has the potential to cause minor collateral damage to the Government or National Security. This information is classified as Official only. Intended to be used in the course of specific duties.
2. Information that has the potential to cause collateral damage to the solidarity of the Cabinet. This information is classified as Cabinet classified.
3. Lastly the most detrimental, Information that has the potential to cause significant collateral damage to the Government or National Security. Receiving the Secret classification

What about government information that doesn't deserve a classification level? It is clearly labeled as Unclassified. Receiving this direction, “UNCLASSIFED - Information that has not been assigned a classification or has been publicly announced or distributed by authorized individuals.”

Now what would you classify a “Criminal Record” as? A Criminal Record is an account of the interactions between an individual and the Department of Justice. Outlining the charges to which an individual received and what kind of punishment that was distributed. It is a Government Document. What damage is done if this information was released to the public upon request? Does it have collateral damage to the Government or National Security? It does not. Does it cause damage to the solidarity of the Cabinet? No. Does releasing Criminal Records cause significant damage to the Government or National Security? Absolutely not! So where does a Criminal Record sit on the classification scale? If it doesn't fit in one of those three categories. It MUST be unclassified.

Now that I have demonstrated where a “Criminal Record” sits on the Classification Spectrum, how is it that I am legally permitted to obtain the record? Under Section 10 of the Classification Act, the Freedom of Information clause, it dictates how and who can request the information. Section 10, Clause 2, clearly states. “Freedom of Information requests can be made by a congressional chamber, congressional committee, Courts, and/or individuals.” Individuals, citizens, the general public. The people have the right to make these requests.
Clause (2.a) dictates. “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.” Firstly, the Department of State is given this charge. Not the DoJ or any other department. Any and all requests are to go through the Department of State as they handle government documentation and its relation with the public. If that was the case and written in law, why is it that I was sent to write two different requests? Secondly, “The department of state is then expected to make a reasonable attempt to provide all non-classified requested information.” What attempt was made in Exhibit C to honor this request? I believe that the conclusion is sound that a Criminal Record is an UNclassified document. Therefore, the Department of State, the Department of Justice, and the Office of the President have violated this act. They have denied a citizen their right to a reasonable request of a UNclassified government document. They made no attempts to honor the request.

 

[drew_hall]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

UtahCowboy20
PLAINTIFF

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
DEFENDANT

OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor, opposing counsel,

The Plaintiff has filed this case under the assumption that if criminal records do not fall under Section 5 of the Classifications Act then it must be unclassified information. The Classifications Act lists types of classifications (Official, Cabinet, and Secret) for the purpose of protecting government institutions, national security, and Cabinet. None of which an individual’s criminal record would fall under, as noted by the Plaintiff. Despite criminal records not falling under any of the aforementioned categories for classifications, this does not by default label them as unclassified. An individual’s criminal record is not a government document, and is not property of the government, rather it is a citizen’s private information and information the government is privy to only because of the relationship between both parties.

In §7.5 of the Executive Standards Act it is clear who is able to access and view an individual’s criminal record, and it states that, “A citizen has the right to know their own criminal record…” The Executive Standards Act does not outline that a third party may view or access another individual’s private information without prior approval or knowledge. It is the role of the government to preserve the rights of citizens, and to ensure confidentiality when dealing with matters of their private security and information.

Finally, under the Plaintiff’s ‘Prayers for Relief’ he states he wishes to receive a “A complete, unabridged, unaltered, record of the interactions of “wetc” and the Department of Justice.” This request shows that the Plaintiff does not have a clear understanding of how criminal records, or the Department of Justice, function in general. The Justice Department only has records of crimes committed by individuals, but does not have records of all interactions between the department and citizens. This ‘Prayer for Relief’ by the Plaintiff is extremely vague in nature as the only information the Justice Department keeps on individuals are criminal records, which as previously stated are considered an individual’s private information and not to be released at the discretion of the government.

To conclude, when looking at criminal records the Classifications Act does not come into account, as the Classifications Act is intended for government documents which criminal records are not. It is the right of the individual citizen to access their own private information, and decide who can be given it, not the decision of the government. Additionally, the Plaintiff is requesting documents and recorded interactions be turned over that simply are not there.

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 April 2022

 

[nnmc]

You both have 48 hours from now to inform the court of any witnesses you wish to call, or state that you have none.

 

[drew_hall]

The Commonwealth has no witnesses to call.

 

[UtCowboy]

Your honor,
The Plaintiff would like to call President Westray to the stand.

 

[nnmc]

@Westray may be summoned to testify if he agrees. However, he also has the constitutional right to not testify against himself.

Westray do you wish to testify in this case?

 

[UtCowboy]

Your honor, I would like to point out that he has direct involvement in this case. As he himself denied my information request. As seen in Plaintiff Exhibit C.

 

[Westray]

Your honour, I raise no concern and would be happy to answer any questions, provided they are relevant to this case.

 

[nnmc]

I will issue a formal witness summons later today, at which point questions can begin.

 

[nnmc]

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

@Westray is required to appear before the Federal Court as a witness in the case of UtahCowboy20 v Commonwealth of Redmont

Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a contempt of court charge.​

 

[Westray]

Your honour, I am present and prepared to answer any questions relevant to the case.

 

[nnmc]

@UtahCowboy20 please provide questions within 48 hours.

 

[UtCowboy]

Mr. President, on April 16th, at 6:49 PM MDT, did you answer a Department of State ticket, from myself, UtCowboy21? Yes or No?

 

[Westray]

Mr. President, on April 16th, at 6:49 PM MDT, did you answer a Department of State ticket, from myself, UtCowboy21? Yes or No?

It was on the 39th minute of the hour, in EST at 8:39 PM. My response to such ticket is already in what has been noted in Plaintiff Exhibit C from the transcript accordingly.

 

[UtCowboy]

It was a Yes or No question. Could you please answer the question? Did you answer a Department of State ticket, from myself, UtCowboy21?

 

[Westray]

It was a Yes or No question. Could you please answer the question? Did you answer a Department of State ticket, from myself, UtCowboy21?

You asked me yes or no if I answered at 6:49 pm MDT, to which I clarified that it was the 39th minute, not the 49th minute, and at 8:39pm EST in my time. Yes, I did respond to you as evident in the transcript.

 

[UtCowboy]

Very well, let’s move on.
Why did you take over the ticket, instead of DoS staff?

 

[Westray]

Very well, let’s move on.
Why did you take over the ticket, instead of DoS staff?

I responded to the ticket accordingly in order to clarify and explain to you the laws and policies regarding the matter at hand. It was an act of good faith in trying to help you solve your issues within the bounds of policy and law. Additionally I have remained as an employee of the department, so I am pinged in these tickets.

 

[UtCowboy]

I responded to the ticket accordingly in order to clarify and explain to you the laws and policies regarding the matter at hand. It was an act of good faith in trying to help you solve your issues within the bounds of policy and law. Additionally I have remained as an employee of the department, so I am pinged in these tickets.

Did you deny the request, Yes or No?

 

[Westray]

Did you deny the request, Yes or No?

We informed you in that ticket that we could not accept your request, given that the Executive Standards Act outlines the process for the sharing of criminal records, which only allows individuals to access their own records. It was an unreasonable request that we could not fulfill with respect to individual privacy and law.

 

[UtCowboy]

We informed you in that ticket that we could not accept your request, given that the Executive Standards Act outlines the process for the sharing of criminal records, which only allows individuals to access their own records. It was an unreasonable request that we could not fulfill with respect to individual privacy and law.

It was a yes or no question, Mr. President. Would you please answer the question.

 

[Westray]

It was a yes or no question, Mr. President. Would you please answer the question.

I believe I answered your question. Yes, your request was denied as it was not in line with departmental policy or the law. The Executive Standards Act outlined the process for the sharing of criminal records, which only allows individuals to access their own records. When I responded to your request, I explained that we could not share the records of others.

 

[UtCowboy]

I believe I answered your question. Yes, your request was denied as it was not in line with departmental policy or the law. The Executive Standards Act outlined the process for the sharing of criminal records, which only allows individuals to access their own records. When I responded to your request, I explained that we could not share the records of others.

Mr president, if the question is presented in a Yes or No format. I am not asking for an explanation. Only a Yes or No answer. I will ask for further explanation if it is needed.

 

[UtCowboy]

President Westray, Can you give a definition of what a government document is?

 

[Westray]

President Westray, Can you give a definition of what a government document is?

Within the context of the laws referenced in this case, to my understanding, a government document is one that is retained solely by the government in national interest.

 

[UtCowboy]

Where do you get this definition? Can you site a source for us?

 

[Westray]

Where do you get this definition? Can you site a source for us?

You asked me to provide a definition of what I believed a government document is, and I answered your question. Considering the context of the Classification Act and Executive Standards Act, a government document is one that is retained solely by the government in national interest. It is something like treaties, audits, reports, and so forth. If it is a document that is shared between an individual citizen and the government, I don't believe it falls under the definition of a "government document" within this matter.

 

[UtCowboy]

So are you claiming that your "beliefs," are justification for your actions? Did you consult any members of your legal team? Do you "believe" that your executive and departmental policy have the power to over-ride the law?

 

[drew_hall]

Objection, your Honor. Those questions are leading.

 

[UtCowboy]

Your honor, none of those questions are leading. The first is asking for clarification to the witnesses previous answer. The second two questions are entirely new questions.

 

[nnmc]

Objection is sustained for questions 1 and 3.

The 2nd question regarding the legal team stands.

 

[nnmc]

@Westray Respond to Question 2 within 48 hours.

 

[Westray]

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.

 

[UtCowboy]

I have no further questions for this witness.

 

[nnmc]

@drew_hall Do you wish to cross-examine Westray?

 

[drew_hall]

I do not

 

[nnmc]

The witness is dismissed then.

@drew_hall @UtahCowboy20 Provide closing statements within 48 hours.

 

[UtCowboy]

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]

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]

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]

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.