- Joined
- Apr 18, 2025
- Messages
- 304
- Thread Author
- #1
IN THE MAGISTRATES’ COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CIVIL ACTION
Soggeh T. Oast, Plaintiff
v.
Crown of Alexandria, Defendant
I. JURISDICTION & STANDING
The Magistrates’ Court is the proper venue for this case under K. A. Const. Part III §16, as this case is a non-Constitutional, non-electoral civil matter.
Plaintiff has standing to bring this action under A.P. 02-001 | Freedom of Information Act §10, which explicitly authorizes any individual to file suit in this Court to request judicial declassification of covered materials.
II. PARTIES
III. FACTS
IV. CLAIM FOR RELIEF
A.P. 02-001 | Freedom of Information Act §10 permits individuals to sue for access to improperly classified materials. In this case, Plaintiff is petitioning for the Materials sought by his Request to be judicially reclassified to UNCLASSIFIED (see A.P. 02-001 §6(6)). While Plaintiff cannot know the exact nature of the Materials, he files this suit on the grounds that information which is currently available to the public seriously calls into question the validity of the classification. Taken together, the clauses of the Freedom of Information Act suggest that classifications must be issued with regard to preventing “collateral damage to the government or national security” and protecting the “solidarity of the government” (see id. §§6(1), 6(2), 6(3)). This Court should find that an OFFICIAL or SECRET classification for the Materials is inherently unreasonable, and in fact counterproductive, for the reasons articulated below.
The details of the Original Case are already public. Currently, any person may view the published docket of Case 5 (Mag Ct., 2026) and learn of the alleged misdeeds of the government told therein. The Crown had further disputed those allegations and chosen to litigate the matter in open Court. The case itself had proceeded through discovery and was partway through trial before the Settlement was reached. It is unlikely that the Settlement specifically discusses any unrelated claims against the government by the Original Plaintiff; nor is it likely that any details which were not already publicly available were discussed in the Settlement.
The Settlement disburses a significant amount of public funds. As stated above, the Settlement purports to entitle the Original Plaintiff to £25,000. The sizable amount of money paid out to the Original Plaintiff is not a matter which may be easily dismissed out of hand. The public has the right to know that the officials entrusted with managing public funds are doing so wisely, competently, and faithfully. Hiding the details of this Settlement cuts against that public right, which must be weighed against any risk of collateral damage to the government or national security.
The integrity of the Settlement was compromised from the outset. The fact that the Solicitor General previously represented the Original Plaintiff, and that the Original Plaintiff's current attorney appears to be a law firm partner with the Solicitor General, should be viewed as a bright red flag by this Court. The Solicitor General, at one point, held a direct stake in the outcome of the case as the Original Plaintiff’s legal representative. The Solicitor General, currently, appears to maintain a business relationship with the Original Plaintiff’s current legal representative, from which the Solicitor would benefit if the Original Case results in a favorable judgement for the Original Plaintiff. From these facts, a major conflict of interest can easily be reasonably perceived. Mere statements from the Solicitor General assuring the public that he pinky promises he acted in good faith is not enough on its own to assuage that perception–human beings are capable of lying. Classifying the Settlement does even less to assuage that perception–if the Settlement really was above board, what does the Crown have to hide? If the public comes to believe that high-level government officials are acting in their own personal interests, rather than the public interest, the resulting destruction of trust in the government would itself cause significant collateral damage to the solidarity of the government, and keeping the Settlement classified poses a massive risk that this outcome will happen. This makes the classification of the Settlement not only unreasonable, but actively counterproductive, under the circumstances.
V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Plaintiff humbly petitions this Court to exercise its authority under A.P. 02-001 §10 to review the Materials and modify or remove their classification as it deems necessary under this Act.
VI. EVIDENCE
VII. PROOF OF REPRESENTATION
Respectfully submitted,
Capt B. Numbers
Plaintiff’s Counsel
CIVIL ACTION
Soggeh T. Oast, Plaintiff
v.
Crown of Alexandria, Defendant
I. JURISDICTION & STANDING
The Magistrates’ Court is the proper venue for this case under K. A. Const. Part III §16, as this case is a non-Constitutional, non-electoral civil matter.
Plaintiff has standing to bring this action under A.P. 02-001 | Freedom of Information Act §10, which explicitly authorizes any individual to file suit in this Court to request judicial declassification of covered materials.
II. PARTIES
- Soggeh T. Oast - an individual filing under the A.P. 02-001 §10(2) private right of action; represented by Plaintiff’s Counsel Capt B. Numbers
- The Crown - represented by the Ministry of Justice, and representing the interests of the Ministry of Justice under §10(2)
III. FACTS
- On March 25, 2026, bernard_madoff (the “Original Plaintiff”) filed a civil petition in the Magistrates’ Court which became bernard_madoff v. Crown, Case 5 (Mag. Ct., 2026) (the “Original Case”).
- The Original Plaintiff was represented in the Original Case by ConsequencesInc, a.k.a. Stephen W. Spooner, Jr., a.k.a. Wigglesworth C. Shimmerclutch, a.k.a. ∴ ⨿🝛.
- On August 8, ConsequencesInc became the Solicitor General of the Kingdom of Alexandria.
- On September 8, 2026, the Original Plaintiff was unfined £25,000 by the Minister of Justice, pursuant to a purported settlement agreement in the Original Case (the “Settlement”). (P-001)
- On September 11, 2026, the attorney bloodyrebals, acting on behalf of the law firm Consequences, Rebals and Associates, informed the Court that he would be taking over as counsel for the Original Plaintiff (bernard_madoff v. Crown, Case 5 (Mag. Ct., 2026) #42).
- On September 13, 2026, Mr. Rebals officially informed the court of the Settlement and requested dismissal with prejudice (bernard_madoff v. Crown, Case 5 (Mag. Ct., 2026) #43).
- On September 9, 2026, Plaintiff (Mr. Oast) submitted a Freedom of Information Request under A.P. 02-001 §9 (the “Request”) seeking a comprehensive set of information regarding the Settlement (the “Materials”). (P-002)
- On September 10, 2026, the Minister of Justice, TurtleDude247, denied the Request on the grounds that the information requested is classified. (P-002)
- The Minister specifically informed the Plaintiff that the only non-classified materials were those already published in the Original Case’s Court thread.
- On September 11, 2026, Plaintiff made a further request to the Ministry of Justice invoking his OFFICIAL clearance as a Member of Parliament under A.P. 02-001 §8(3)(a) to obtain access to Materials related to his Request covered by that clearance. (P-003)
- The Minister was able to provide access to some of the Materials, but clarified that the remainder of the Materials were classified as SECRET. (P-004)
IV. CLAIM FOR RELIEF
A.P. 02-001 | Freedom of Information Act §10 permits individuals to sue for access to improperly classified materials. In this case, Plaintiff is petitioning for the Materials sought by his Request to be judicially reclassified to UNCLASSIFIED (see A.P. 02-001 §6(6)). While Plaintiff cannot know the exact nature of the Materials, he files this suit on the grounds that information which is currently available to the public seriously calls into question the validity of the classification. Taken together, the clauses of the Freedom of Information Act suggest that classifications must be issued with regard to preventing “collateral damage to the government or national security” and protecting the “solidarity of the government” (see id. §§6(1), 6(2), 6(3)). This Court should find that an OFFICIAL or SECRET classification for the Materials is inherently unreasonable, and in fact counterproductive, for the reasons articulated below.
The details of the Original Case are already public. Currently, any person may view the published docket of Case 5 (Mag Ct., 2026) and learn of the alleged misdeeds of the government told therein. The Crown had further disputed those allegations and chosen to litigate the matter in open Court. The case itself had proceeded through discovery and was partway through trial before the Settlement was reached. It is unlikely that the Settlement specifically discusses any unrelated claims against the government by the Original Plaintiff; nor is it likely that any details which were not already publicly available were discussed in the Settlement.
The Settlement disburses a significant amount of public funds. As stated above, the Settlement purports to entitle the Original Plaintiff to £25,000. The sizable amount of money paid out to the Original Plaintiff is not a matter which may be easily dismissed out of hand. The public has the right to know that the officials entrusted with managing public funds are doing so wisely, competently, and faithfully. Hiding the details of this Settlement cuts against that public right, which must be weighed against any risk of collateral damage to the government or national security.
The integrity of the Settlement was compromised from the outset. The fact that the Solicitor General previously represented the Original Plaintiff, and that the Original Plaintiff's current attorney appears to be a law firm partner with the Solicitor General, should be viewed as a bright red flag by this Court. The Solicitor General, at one point, held a direct stake in the outcome of the case as the Original Plaintiff’s legal representative. The Solicitor General, currently, appears to maintain a business relationship with the Original Plaintiff’s current legal representative, from which the Solicitor would benefit if the Original Case results in a favorable judgement for the Original Plaintiff. From these facts, a major conflict of interest can easily be reasonably perceived. Mere statements from the Solicitor General assuring the public that he pinky promises he acted in good faith is not enough on its own to assuage that perception–human beings are capable of lying. Classifying the Settlement does even less to assuage that perception–if the Settlement really was above board, what does the Crown have to hide? If the public comes to believe that high-level government officials are acting in their own personal interests, rather than the public interest, the resulting destruction of trust in the government would itself cause significant collateral damage to the solidarity of the government, and keeping the Settlement classified poses a massive risk that this outcome will happen. This makes the classification of the Settlement not only unreasonable, but actively counterproductive, under the circumstances.
V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Plaintiff humbly petitions this Court to exercise its authority under A.P. 02-001 §10 to review the Materials and modify or remove their classification as it deems necessary under this Act.
VI. EVIDENCE
VII. PROOF OF REPRESENTATION
Respectfully submitted,
Capt B. Numbers
Plaintiff’s Counsel
