zLost
Citizen
Public Affairs Department
Education Department
Supporter
Oakridge Resident
3rd Anniversary
Grave Digger
Change Maker
Popular in the Polls
zLost
Event Manager
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2020
- Messages
- 674
- Thread Author
- #1
Case Filing
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
zLost
Plaintiff
v.
The Commonweatlh of Redmont
Defendant
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
I. PARTIES
1. zLost
2. juniperfig (Attorney General)
3. The Commonwealth of Redmont
II. FACTS
1. On the 26th of May, the May 2025 Oakridge Mayor Election's result was announced, resulting in a victory for WPR candidate roryyy___. (Exhibit A)
2. A few hours after the results, Plaintiff zLost opened a ticket with the Department of Justice asking for any sheet they used to count votes for the election. (Exhibit B)
3. Attorney General juniperfig proceeded to reply stating that no sheets were used, rather the raw data (exported results) were used to count the votes. (Exhibit B)
4. The Plaintiff then asked if it would be possible to acquire the exported results as part of the request. (Exhibit B)
5. The Attorney General, after some time, stated that this would not be possible due to the voting results having "SECRET" Classification. (Exhibit B)
6. The Plaintiff asked for the reason behind this, to which the Attorney General responded by saying that the exported results would violate the right to secret ballot if they were released to the public because of their mention of the timestamps of voters. (Exhibit C)
7. The Plaintiff contested this reason for classification, stating that the Department of State would also be in violation of Right 3 if the exported results truly did violate the right to secret ballot, and that there has been numerous amounts of precedent which indicate that timestamps do not violate the right to secret ballot. (Exhibit D)
8. The Attorney General cited plugin limitations and that "there's no way around it". As for the precedent regarding the submission of evidence containing timestamps, they simply stated that they personally wouldn't do that. (Exhibit D)
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Classifications Act (link) states:
(3) Any person or government body with a significant interest in classified information can request the Federal Court to determine whether or not said information is justly classified. This request pertains to all classifications. If determined that the classified information is not justly classified, the presiding judge/justice will lower its classification to the highest justifiable level.
2. The Plaintiff has significant interest in this classified information, given that they ran against roryyy___ in the Oakridge Mayor Election.
3. The Plaintiff argues that the information classified does not have a reasonable justification to be classified, as it does not violate the right to secret ballot. In the Supreme Court, there exist two cases where voter timestamps were shared outside of a closed court and the Supreme Court upheld this evidence, implying that voter timestamps are not a violation of secret ballot. These two cases are SCR 1 [2025] (link) and SCR 4 [2025] (link). Not only that, the Department of Justice has accepted Freedom of Information requests for raw data in the past which is how the raw data in SCR 1 and SCR 4 was obtained. Note that the document containing the raw data has now been deleted, most likely for unrelated and unknown reasons long after the cases, but there still exist screenshots of it which also show voter timestamps (SCR 4 [2025]).
Outside of precedent, secret ballot is a method of voting in which the voters identity is hidden. Seeing the timestamps does not reveal the voters identity, and while its certainly possible to have a guess of how someone voted using that information, at the end of the day, it is still a guess. There is no guarantee that the person actually voted at that time, it's entirely possible to fake voting by opening the vote menu and then closing it without voting. Not only that, this guess can still be made using information such as the voting preferences. For example, if someone told me they voted "Candidate 3, Candidate 6, Candidate 2, Candidate 1, Candidate 10, etc." in that order, then I can check the voting spreadsheet provided by the Department of State in past elections to see if anyone fits that voting preference order. But, as I've said before, it's still a simple guess and the voters identity is not leaked.
4. However, if the courts believe that the timestamps would violate the right to secret ballot if unclassified, then we allege that the Department of State has also violated the right to secret ballot. No one is above the law, and therefore Electoral Officers should also not be able to see timestamps. The Attorney General stated that it was due to the plugin, and that there was no way around it. However, this is simply false. For example, the Department of State could've requested an unbiased third party from Staff to manually remove the timestamps before giving it to the Department of State, as Staff can violate the law if needed since, in the past, one of the Owners has accessed the raw data for elections to see the results early (Exhibit E). Not only that, such actions have been taken by staff in the past (Exhibit F).
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. For the classification level of the exported result of the Oakridge Mayor Elections of May 2025 to be reduced to a classification level of "UNCLASSIFIED"
2. $6,000 in Legal Fees.
OR (if the Courts find that timestamps do violate the right to secret ballot)
1. $5,000 in Punitive Damages per election and referendum they have voted in since in-game voting was implemented to be given to every citizen as the Government has violated their right to secret ballot. Reasoning being that the DoS has very likely used data including timestamps of voters since in-game voting was implemented.
2. $6,000 in Legal Fees.
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 1st day of June 2025
Last edited:
