Lawsuit: Adjourned VerniciaS v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 39

Status
Not open for further replies.
My apologies, your Honor. I accidentally hit send before I finished my message.

Yes, the screenshots in question are taken from the CPI.

I would like to bring to the court’s attention that the very key to the Defense’s argument is the idea that these pieces of evidence are, in fact, open to the public and are not restricted in any way, as defined under the applicable classification laws and the Executive Order above mentioned.

So, if you rule to strike these pieces of evidence on the grounds that they must be kept private, you are giving a verdict on the legality of distributing private and confidential information before you officially write a verdict. And you’d be ruling against the Defendant by default.
 
OBJECTION
Fruit of the poisonous tree

Your Honor, Exhibit A and Exhibit B in the original case filing are allegedly classified. The Plaintiff should've requested a closed court to submit this evidence, instead of putting it for public view and possibly causing more harm if this evidence is found to indeed be classified (which is the subject matter of the case). As such, this evidence should not be considered.
Given the Plaintiff's response, I will be overruling this Objection given the argument here is that the evidence was published illegally via the CPI. Through confirming with the Plaintiff shows that the evidence was obtained via public means. Thus the Objection is fruitless.
 
You Honor, opposing counsel is past their second deadline as of two minutes ago.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honor, the Plaintiff brings up the definition of personnel from somewhere. However, this definition does not matter as the Clarity Act (link) states:

(2) Any words or phrases defined in Redmont Law will take Precedence over the dictionary definition.

As the Executive Order already gives a source (the Commerce Secretary) for the definition of the term "relevant personnel", it does not matter what it's defined as outside of the Commerce Secretary's definition.
 
OBJECTION
BREACH OF PROCEDURE


Opposing counsel is already past the deadline to post a closing statement.
 
Given the Plaintiff has now missed their time to respond to the Objection, I will be granting the Objection.

We will now be in recess pending a verdict.
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT

Vernicia v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 39

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Defendant posted confidential information thus breaching Executive Order 24/23.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. What is to be and not to be shared is at discretion of the Commerce Secretary and thus it can be published.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. So yes the EO states Relevant Personnel, that doesn't mean it can just completely give out the information to the public. Relevant Personnel is to be employees in the department not items that the people were told would be confidential and shared only with Relevant Personnel aka those who need it for making the CPI.

2. This case hinges on whether the Relevant Personnel would include the public which, that is just flat out no. The Commerce Secretary would only have the ability to state who has the ability to see the confidential information within the Department. The information is no longer confidential if everyone is able to see it thus breaking another clause of the EO stating that it is classified. An argument can be made then everyone would be relevant personnel which in that case, why am I not an Economist in the DOC?

IV. DECISION
1. I hereby rule in favor of the Plaintiff however due to the excessive amount that is being requested. The Reliefs will be amended.

The Plaintiff is to receive:

  • $15,000 in Compensatory Damages.
  • $25,000 in Punitive Damages.
  • $10,000 in Loss of Enjoyment.
  • $10,000 in Legal Fees.
  • $60,000 in total.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top