Lawsuit: Pending zLost v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 52

zLost

zLost

Citizen
Public Affairs Department
Education Department
Supporter
Oakridge Resident
3rd Anniversary Grave Digger Change Maker Popular in the Polls
zLost
zLost
Event Manager
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
678

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

Following the Oakridge Mayoral Elections of May 2025, the Department of Justice denied a Freedom of Information request for the exported results on the basis of it having SECRET classification as it would allegedly violate the right to secret ballot. The Plaintiff wishes to contest this classification in court, through the provisions granted to them under the Classifications Act (link).
Click to expand...

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 the Plaintiff 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.


1748793462421.png
1748793313774.png
1748793364189.png
1748793497857.png
1748793534856.png
1748793609410.png
1748793929152.png

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:

Writ of Summons


@juniperfig is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of zlost v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 52

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

 
Your Honor, I would like to amend my filing as below to fix a mistake:

Following the Oakridge Mayoral Elections of May 2025, the Department of Justice denied a Freedom of Information request for the exported results on the basis of it having OFFICIAL SECRET classification as it would allegedly violate the right to secret ballot. The Plaintiff wishes to contest this classification in court, through the provisions granted to them under the Classifications Act (link).
 
Last edited:
zLost said:
Your Honor, I would like to amend my filing as below to fix a mistake:

Following the Oakridge Mayoral Elections of May 2025, the Department of Justice denied a Freedom of Information request for the exported results on the basis of it having OFFICIAL OFFICIAL classification as it would allegedly violate the right to secret ballot. The Plaintiff wishes to contest this classification in court, through the provisions granted to them under the Classifications Act (link).
Click to expand...
Granted.
 
The Commonwealth is present, Your Honor.
 

Answer to Complaint


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
zLost
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonweatlh of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The defense AFFIRMS that on the 26th of May, the May 2025 Oakridge Mayor Election's result was announced, resulting in a victory for WPR candidate roryyy___.
2. The defense AFFIRMS that 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.
3. The defense AFFIRMS that Attorney General juniperfig proceeded to reply stating that no sheets were used, rather the raw data (exported results) were used to count the votes.
4. The defense AFFIRMS that the Plaintiff then asked if it would be possible to acquire the exported results as part of the request.
5. The defense AFFIRMS that the Attorney General, after some time, stated that this would not be possible due to the voting results having "SECRET" Classification.
6. The defense AFFIRMS that 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.
7. The defense AFFIRMS that 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.
8. The defense AFFIRMS that 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.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Commonwealth agrees that the Federal Court should determine whether or not the information in question is justly classified as "SECRET" in line with the Classifications Act.
2. The fourth Claim for Relief is not sufficiently supported by the facts and evidence provided on the balance of probabilities.
3. Plaintiff has no standing for the fourth Claim for Relief.
4. The third Prayer for Relief is not a reasonable relief to be granted to remedy the fourth Claim for Relief.

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 sixth day of June 2025

 
We will now be entering discovery. Discovery will last 5 days starting now.
 

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

The Plaintiff requests summary judgement as all facts have been affirmed. The Plaintiff also agrees with the Defence that the Federal Court has all the facts needed to make a verdict.

 
Last edited:

Motion


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

The Defense moves that the fourth Claim for Relief in this case and the corresponding Prayer for Relief be dismissed with prejudice and struck from the complaint, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Per Rule 5.3 (Motion Can be Applied to) of our Court Rules and Procedures a Motion to Dismiss may be submitted against any and all claims for relief and prayer for relief. The Defense submits this motion to dismiss against specifically the fourth claim for relief, and the corresponding prayer for relief which reads: "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. The fourth claim for relief is a generalized grievance and not a personal legal claim. The Plaintiff alleges a particular practice, but does not show any specific harm that happened to them because of this alleged practice.

3.The case TheGreat_Boi vs Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 38 was Sua Sponte dismissed with prejudice because "This is a generalized grievance, not a personal legal claim. The Plaintiff hasn’t shown any specific harm that happened to them because of this alleged practice, just a broad complaint about government policy." and it was stated by the presiding judge that "Without a direct injury or a proper remedy, the Plaintiff doesn’t have standing under Rule 2.1. That means I have to dismiss the case under Rule 2.2." As the situation with the fourth claim for relief in this case is the same, the precedent prescribes that the Plaintiff does not have standing to pursue the fourth claim under Rule 2.1 (Standing Application) and that the claim shall therefore be dismissed with prejudice.

4. The Plaintiff does not have standing to pursue the fourth claim for relief as the Plaintiff has not even alleged that they suffered some injury due to this claim and therefore per Rule 5.12 (Lack of Personal Jurisidiction) and in line with precedent, the plaintiff requests that the fourth claim for relief and the corresponding prayer for relief be dismissed with prejudice and struck from the Complaint.

 
Your Honor, may I respond to the motion to dismiss?
 
Your Honor, in light of the Motion to Dismiss, the Plaintiff would like to amend the alternative Prayer for Relief as follows:

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 the Plaintiff 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.
 
zLost said:
Your Honor, in light of the Motion to Dismiss, the Plaintiff would like to amend the alternative Prayer for Relief as follows:

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 the Plaintiff 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.
Click to expand...
Granted
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

The Defence alleges that the case is generalized grievance and not a personal legal claim. However, this is simply untrue as the Plaintiff themselves personally definitely did face a violation of their secret ballot in the alleged situation (if the courts find timestamps to violate secret ballot) in Claim for Relief 4. This is further solidified with the amendment to the alternative Prayer for Relief.

The Defence also alleges that the Plaintiff lacks proper standing for Claim for Relief 4. The Plaintiff denies this, Rule 2.1 in Court Rules & Procedure (link) states:

Rule 2.1 (Standing Application)​

In order for a plaintiff to pursue a case, they must show the following to the court:
  1. Suffered some injury caused by a clear second party; or is affected by an application of law.
  2. The cause of injury was against the law.
  3. Remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision.
Click to expand...
Let's check if the Plaintiff meets all the requirements set out by Rule 2.1

Suffered some injury caused by a clear second party; or is affected by an application of law.
This is true, the Plaintiff had their constitutional right violated (as they are an active member of politics, and are therefore more likely than not to participate in voting for elections) by a clear second party, the Department of State.
The cause of injury was against the law.
Violation of rights is a constitutional violation, and therefore against the law.
Remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision.
The Plaintiff's alternative Prayer for Relief is justified by the Legal Damages Act (link), which states:
(a) “Punitive damages” are damages awarded against a person to punish them for their outrageous conduct and to deter them and others like them from similar conduct in the future, as a counter claim if a party believes the case to be frivolous and outrageous, or as authorized by law. These damages are distinct from 4 - Compensatory Damage as there does not need to be any actual loss to be compensated. A penalty clause in a contract would fall under this definition as well.
Click to expand...
Violation of a constitutional right is most definitely outrageous conduct, and punitive damages will serve as a warning for the Department of State to avoid making such mistakes in the future.

Other than this, the Plaintiff also believes that the alternative Prayer is much more similar to Ko531 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 97 rather than TheGreat_Boi vs Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 38.
 
Your Honor, I would like to amend Claim for Relief 4 to the following:

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 Plaintiff's right to secret ballot, as they are an active member of Politics and have run in multiple elections, and are therefore much more likely than not to have voted in most elections since in-game voting was implemented. 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).

Apologies for making this a separate amendment rather than having it be with the previous amendment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top