Request #31
Request
  • Submitted By: Veren
  • Submitted At: 23/Aug/2026 02:35 PM UTC
  • Submitted To: Department of Justice

To: Department of Justice
From: Veren, Senator for Oregon and Chairman of the Judiciary Committee

I respectfully submit this Freedom of Information Request concerning the enforcement of Part 7, Section 1(2) of the Legislation Act 2025, which provides:

"The Supreme Court has up to seven days from the date of entering Stage 6 to review primary legislation, and if time expires, the bill shall enter Stage 7 as if passing a Judicial Review"

The Supreme Court has recently issued, or has yet to issue, a Judicial Review beyond the statutory 7-day period prescribed by law. This includes:

* Crimes (Amendment 2) Act 2026 - This was signed into law on August 11, 2026, whereas the Judicial Review ruling was published 11 days later on August 22, 2026.
The Supreme Court declared this Act unconstitutional. However, under Part 7, Section 1(2) of the Legislation Act 2025, the legislation would have automatically entered Stage 7 upon expiry of the 7-day period. This raises significant questions as to whether the later Judicial Review ruling has any legal effect once the statutory deadline had already expired.

* Long Service Recognition (Ribbon System) Act 2026 - This was signed into law on August 9, 2026. As of today, 14 days later, the Supreme Court has still not published a Judicial Review ruling.

* Employment (Amendment 10) Act 2026 - This was signed into law on August 11, 2026. As of today, 12 days later, the Supreme Court has still not published a Judicial Review ruling.

Accordingly, I respectfully request answers to the following:
- Has the Department of Justice investigated any failure of duty by the Supreme Court to complete a Judicial Review within the statutory timeframe? If so, which Acts were affected?
- Has any prosecution or charge been pursued in relation to such failures? If so, please identify the relevant case(s).
- If not, does the Department of Justice intend to investigate or pursue prosecution for any such failures?
- Have any previous charges for negligence of duties in relation to Judicial Reviews been closed or dismissed? If so, why?
- Does the Department of Justice intend to reopen any such charges?
Request #30
Request
  • Submitted By: Inconclusive-
  • Submitted At: 14/Aug/2026 08:58 PM UTC
  • Submitted To: Voting & Electoral Commission

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information (Rewrite) Act 2026, I am requesting the Written Report and names of the 6 individuals who initiated the Vote of No Confidence on the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
___

As there was discussion regarding the protection of this information. I will supply foundation as to why this material isn't protected by Constitutional law and Statute law.

Right to Privacy concerns; My request is pertaining to the Written Request and Names of individuals, while your name could indeed be considered "Private", I do not think this falls under the Right to Privacy governed by the constitution, your name is plastered everywhere on this site, discord and client respectively.

It is also important to note that under the No Confidence Act 2025 it doesn't suggest anywhere in the Act that the initial Written Request and 6 individuals are to remain anonymous in nature. In my opinion, suppressing this information undermines transparency and democratic accountability.

Under the same Act, the Protections clause indicate protections that are present with their vote on the matter, it is my personal opinion that the crime is apparent with violations that are conducted with this information, not the actual disclosure.

Another argument made was pursuant to Part 5 Section 4 of the Digital Service (Rewrite) (Amendment 1) Act 2026 - Secure Voting relates to securing the actual votes of the Election Portal, not the initial Written Request or 6 names outlined in this request.

Please note this is the information provided here is my sole interpretation of the law, not the entire Supreme Bench in any official capacity.
Response
  • Response By: Owen?
  • Response At: 14/Aug/2026 09:14 PM UTC

The Voting and Electoral Commission accepts your FOI Request and we cannot see a reason why this request should not be approved. As per the letter of law, there is no requirement to protect the names of the individuals who requested that the Vote of No Confidence be Initiated.

As such, we have made the decision to release those names to you today. The following members requested that the Vote of No Confidence be initiated against the Speaker of the House.

Secretary of the Senate Cavemanq
Senate Leader Veren
Leader of the House Christo63421
Senator Lady-Liberty
Representative Lemonplum
Representative DemonHellRaiser
Request #29
Request
  • Submitted By: GreenArcher
  • Submitted At: 10/Aug/2026 05:57 PM UTC
  • Submitted To: Executive Office of the President

I apologize for having to send the same request from FOI request #28. I respectfully contend that the answer did not accurately answer the question. Submitting a Leave of Absence request is different from actually being on a validly approved Leave of Absence.

To clarify, I ask again: Was Attorney General ICEMAN. on a validly approved leave of absence from the period of July 25, 2026 to August 5, 2026?
Response
  • Response By: Peachxes
  • Response At: 10/Aug/2026 06:06 PM UTC

Hello GreenArcher

If a Leave of Absence request had not been submitted, then there was nothing to be approved. Therefore, he was not on an approved Leave of Absence during the prescribed dates of 25 July 2026 to 5 August 2026.

Kind regards
Peachxes
Chief of Staff
Request #28
Request
  • Submitted By: GreenArcher
  • Submitted At: 10/Aug/2026 02:14 AM UTC
  • Submitted To: Executive Office of the President

Was the Attorney General on a leave of absence from the period of July 25, 2026 to August 5, 2026?
Response
  • Response By: Peachxes
  • Response At: 10/Aug/2026 12:38 PM UTC

Hello GreenArcher

Thank you for your FOI request.

I can confirm that the Attorney General did not submit a leave of absence request during the provided dates of 25 July 2026 to 5 August 2026.

Kind regards
Peachxes
Chief of Staff
Request #27
Request
  • Submitted By: kevincool@
  • Submitted At: 27/Jul/2026 02:55 PM UTC
  • Submitted To: Department of Justice

As AC-113 was declined on the wrong grounds since the law covering declining cases only applies for Criminal cases, would the Department of Justice be willing to reconsider their decision and put the case back on the docket?
Response
  • Response By: notsyam
  • Response At: 28/Jul/2026 09:37 AM UTC

Honourable Kevincool@,

Thank you for your inquiry.

The Department does not intend to reconsider AC-113 at this time.

The matter was not closed because the Department made a ruling on the merits of the appeal. It was closed because the submission, as reviewed, did not present a clear or reviewable basis for the appeal to proceed.

Based on the submission made through the White House website, AC-113 was filed as a Hiring Blacklist appeal. However, when the Department reviewed the appeal against the stated reason for the Hiring Blacklist and the Appellant’s formal written statement during the evidence-gathering stage, the Department was unable to identify a clear basis for appellate review.

The statement provided by the Appellant did not address the Hiring Blacklist, the reasons for its issuance, or any alleged error in the original decision. Instead, the statement concerned separate Discord communications which were not materially relevant to the matter being appealed.

Under Part 2 of the Prosecution Act 2025, a Court of Appeals matter must specify what is being appealed. While the Act does not expressly provide a separate process for unclear or defective appeal submissions before they are placed before the Court, the Department must still be able to identify a clear and reviewable basis before processing the matter further.

This decision is not intended as a finding against any party. It simply reflects that, based on the submission and statement provided, the appeal did not provide sufficient grounds for the matter to proceed.

The Appellant remains free to submit a new appeal that properly addresses the Hiring Blacklist and provides relevant grounds for review. Until then, AC-113 will remain closed.

notsyam
Solicitor General
Request #26
Request
  • Submitted By: s810
  • Submitted At: 25/Jul/2026 10:55 PM UTC
  • Submitted To: Legislative Leadership

Greetings, esteemed Legislative Leadership.

As kas?'s assigned attorney for the Appeals Court Docket Number AC-106, I would like to ask for more information regarding my client's Hiring Blacklist since it is mentioned to contact the branch's SHR for more information.

Additionally, I would also like to ask on the process of Blacklisting within the Legislative Branch, if possible. Mainly, my questions are the following:

1. As per P7, S1(1)(2), "The branch leadership has approved the placement with an unanimous vote.". My question is, under what grounds does the Legislative Branch initiate a vote? I just would like to know the thought process in starting a vote to blacklist an individual.

2. Is there a certain process within the branch when it comes to blacklisting? Do you formally inform individuals about the flag? If so, what are the steps the Legislative Branch takes?

I look forward to your response, thank you in advance.

Signed,
s810
Response
  • Response By: kevincool@
  • Response At: 26/Jul/2026 10:56 PM UTC

Some felt that what she have said is unexcuseable and thought it would be better suited for her to get blacklisted than coming back to the branch, which she planned on doing, our laws are not perfect so she could be back in the branch within a day and blacklisting was the only reason, so we used the same reason as the dismissal for her blacklist as well.

Well, it was proposed on our channel to blacklist and some agreed so I put it up for a vote within Leadership where everyone voted for it. Later on, your client was informed about the decision in HQ.
Request #25
Request
  • Submitted By: kas?
  • Submitted At: 21/Jul/2026 10:25 PM UTC
  • Submitted To: Department of Justice

I am seeking clarification regarding the Department of Justice's procedures for Anonymous Submissions and Whistleblowing.

In Notice of Declination AC-59, the Department stated:

"The Appellant shall submit his case himself. If won't or can't, then use the Anonymous Submission or Whistleblowing Option, not another user."

However, I have been unable to locate any mechanism or procedure that allows a user to submit a complaint anonymously or through a whistleblowing process.

I therefore request:

1. A copy of the current policy or procedure governing Anonymous Submissions and/or Whistleblowing.
2. Details of how a user may access and utilise these services.
3. If no such mechanism currently exists, confirmation of whether the statement made in AC-59 remains current and accurate.
Response
  • Response By: notsyam
  • Response At: 23/Jul/2026 06:19 AM UTC

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001
RE: FOI Request #25

Honourable Kas?

Thank you for your request for clarification.

The provisions governing Anonymous Submissions and Whistleblowing are found in Part 4 of the Prosecution Act 2025.

Part 4, Section 3 (Anonymous Submission) states that:
"Any employee can contact the Department of Justice to anonymously sue on their behalf."

It further provides that:
"In this instance, evidence may be edited to hide the identity of the anonymous person."

Part 4, Section 4 (Whistleblowing) states that:
"Individuals may give the Department of Justice or another authority information about potential breaches of law, and may be protected from detriment if doing so."

As such, both Anonymous Submissions and Whistleblowing are recognized mechanisms under the Prosecution Act 2025.

With regard to AC-59, the appeal was submitted by Steph on behalf of slazengers. The basis for the declination was that the individual seeking relief was not the individual submitting the appeal.

The statement contained within the Notice of Declination was intended to clarify that where an individual wishes to pursue a matter, they should ordinarily submit the matter themselves. If they are unwilling or unable to do so, Part 4 provides alternative mechanisms through Anonymous Submission or Whistleblowing rather than having another user submit the matter on their behalf.

The Act does not prescribe a specific form or dedicated portal for these mechanisms. Instead, the legislation recognizes the ability for individuals to contact the Department of Justice directly for anonymous submissions or to provide information under the whistleblowing provisions.

Accordingly, the statement made in AC-59 remains current and accurate. The case was declined because it had been submitted by a third party on behalf of another individual, not because Anonymous Submission or Whistleblowing mechanisms did not exist.

Furthermore, Steph,. was not a member of the Department of Justice and was not acting under any authority granted by the Department at the time of submission. As such, she was not authorized to submit or pursue an appeal on behalf of another user through Department of Justice processes. If slazengers wished to pursue the matter, he was required to submit the appeal himself or make use of the Anonymous Submission or Whistleblowing provisions available under Part 4 of the Prosecution Act 2025.

For ease of reference, you may review the full Prosecution Act 2025 yourself, including the provisions cited above, at:
https://thehabbowh.org/law/show/20

Signed,

notsyam
Solicitor General
Request #24
Request
  • Submitted By: Apped
  • Submitted At: 09/Jul/2026 09:28 PM UTC
  • Submitted To: Department of State

To the Department of State,

The White House × HDA Valentine's Ball, held on 15 February, was a highly successful collaborative event featuring games, a live DJ and the formal alliance signing ceremony between the White House and HDA. Following that event, I would be grateful if you could provide the following information for the three months immediately preceding the date of this request:

1. How many joint events has the Department of State hosted/co-hosted with another agency or mil?
2. How many state visits involving foreign delegates have been hosted in the Oval Office?

For each joint event identified in response to Question 1, please provide:
• the date;
• the title of the event;
• the partner agency/mil organisation; and
• a brief summary of the event's purpose.

For each state visit identified in response to Question 2, please provide:
• the date;
• the visiting nation or organisation;
• the senior foreign delegate(s) in attendance; and
• a brief summary of the purpose of the visit.

I ask these questions as a former SoS who remains interested in the Department's work and wants to see the White House continue to strengthen its presence and success on the international stage.
Response
  • Response By: Coolvimto
  • Response At: 13/Jul/2026 07:34 PM UTC

Hello! It is I, Coolvimto. Let dive into this FoI...

Firstly, when you did leave, we had other members who became a SoS such as htak who created the idea and conception of the Foreign Service Officer (I think) and she left. The former Seas came in and had to deal with a termination and restarting everything again based on communication and conversations to put ourselves on the map. Seas then continued his efforts in communicating with 8+ agencies and doing Diplomatic Missions in the early May. I became SoT and me and Seas continued to continue Diplomatic Missions May, June and July. (I highly recommend having a look on the announcements and on the Screenies-and-memory channel on our server as I have shown my screenshots of our diplomatic missions and the themes.)

Before Seas left, he has given us potential events that are still in the works by me (the newest SoS) so watch out with that.

So to conclude:

1) Seas restarted everything and continued relations with 8+ agencies
2) Foreign Service Officer was a new service and we have 6 people joined
3) events are coming
4) Our diplomatic Missions are on the announcements and on the memories page on our discord...

I hope that helps!
Request #23
Request
  • Submitted By: kevincool@
  • Submitted At: 29/Jun/2026 02:09 PM UTC
  • Submitted To: Department of Justice

Hello! I request to see the publicly made report which is required by Part 7 Section 4 of the prosecution act for the Ethics Board that was convened for the case SC-61. Thank you.
Response
  • Response By: ICEMAN.
  • Response At: 30/Jun/2026 05:30 PM UTC

PUBLIC REPORT OF THE ETHICS BOARD
REGARDING THE CERTIFICATION OF EVIDENCE FOR A BAN ON SIGHT REQUEST

Matter: Ethics Board Review of Evidence Submitted in Relation to a Ban on Sight Request

I. Members of the Ethics Board
The following members were present and participated in the review of this matter:

*ICEMAN — Chairman of the Board
* xXLaurenXx. — Deputy Chairman of the Board
* Xcleb — Member
* AmazingConnor — Member
* OllieSafe — Member
* hexal — Member
* Seas. — Member

II. Purpose of the Report
Pursuant to the reporting requirements governing the Ethics Board, this public report is issued following the Board’s decision regarding the certification of evidence submitted for review.

The Department of Justice respectfully submitted this matter to the Ethics Board following allegations raised by the Department of Defense concerning the conduct of certain accused organisations and their affiliated members.

The Department of Defense requested that appropriate action be taken to impose a Ban on Sight Order against the accused organisations and their members on the grounds of Terroristic Conduct, as outlined under Part 2, Section 1, Subsection 1 of the Defence Act 2025.

III. Evidence in Question
The evidence placed before the Ethics Board concerned allegations that the accused organisations and their affiliated members engaged in a mass, coordinated, and systematic abuse of the Habbo reporting mechanism, which allegedly resulted in the unjust suspension of the White House Headquarters.

According to the Department of Defense, the conduct in question was not accidental or incidental. Rather, the Department of Defense alleged that the conduct appeared to be deliberate, organised, and carried out with hostile intent against the White House institution.

The evidence was submitted for the purpose of determining whether it should be certified for use in relation to the requested Ban on Sight proceedings.

IV. Ethics Board Vote
Following review and consideration of the submitted material, the Ethics Board voted as follows:

Votes in Favor of Certifying the Evidence: 7
Votes Opposed to Certifying the Evidence:0
Total Votes Cast: 7

The decision of the Ethics Board was unanimous.

V. Certification Decision
Based on the unanimous vote of the Ethics Board, the evidence was:

CERTIFIED

Accordingly, the evidence may be relied upon for the relevant legal or procedural purpose connected to the Ban on Sight request, subject to any applicable evidentiary rules, court procedure, or further review required under White House law.


VI. Summary of Arguments
A. Argument in Favor of Certification
Those in favor of certifying the evidence found that the submitted material was sufficiently relevant to the allegations raised by the Department of Defense.
The supporting position was that the evidence appeared to show conduct directed toward the White House as an organisation and toward its members. The material also appeared to indicate coordination, hostility, and conduct relevant to the concerns underlying the requested Ban on Sight Order.
It was further considered that the alleged abuse of the Habbo reporting mechanism, if established, could demonstrate organised conduct intended to disrupt the normal functioning of the White House and interfere with its institutional operations.

B. Argument Opposed to Certification
No members of the Ethics Board voted against certification.
As such, there was no formal opposing vote recorded. However, the Board acknowledges that all evidence submitted for certification must still be reviewed carefully, with attention to reliability, relevance, context, and compliance with applicable evidentiary standards.


VII. Final Notes from Members of the Board
No separate final notes were submitted by members of the Ethics Board for inclusion in this public report.


VIII. Final Statement from the Attorney General
Having reviewed the material submitted before the Ethics Board, I am satisfied that the evidence should be certified.

On that basis, I believe the evidence meets the required standard. The material appears to show conduct directed toward the White House as an organisation, as well as toward its members. It also indicates a level of coordination, hostility, and recruitment activity that is relevant to the concerns underlying the requested Ban on Sight Order.

In my view, the material is sufficiently connected to the alleged Terroristic Conduct identified under the Defence Act 2025.

On my personal behalf, I wish to state that I fully respect the views and positions expressed by the other members of the Ethics Board in this matter. I recognise that each member reviewed the evidence from their own perspective and formed their view in good faith.

The Department of Justice remains committed to due process, evidentiary integrity, and the fair administration of White House law. This report is issued in the interest of transparency, accountability, and the proper functioning of the Ethics Board process.

Issued by:
ICEMAN
Attorney General
Chairman of the Ethics Board
Department of Justice
Habbo White House
Request #22
Request
  • Submitted By: :Spiritfarer:
  • Submitted At: 22/Jun/2026 11:27 AM UTC
  • Submitted To: Secret Services Leadership

requesting a FOI regarding the reason that I (:Spiritfarer:) was fired.
Response
  • Response By: SabWasX
  • Response At: 22/Jun/2026 02:07 PM UTC

Per Part 4, Section 2(1) of the Employment Act, "Employees must log in to Habbo and the White House website before 5 days." According to our records, your last login was on 5 June 2026, and as of 11 June 2026, you were not logged on for over 5 days.
Request #21
Request
  • Submitted By: saintpaulbb
  • Submitted At: 11/Jun/2026 12:29 PM UTC
  • Submitted To: Department of Justice

Greetings,
I am filing an FOI request about the settlement agreement between the plaintiff and defendant for the violation of the crime stipulated in SC-48. Can you provide information on this?

Thank you!
Response
  • Response By: ICEMAN.
  • Response At: 11/Jun/2026 05:31 PM UTC

Greetings,

SC-48 was settled outside of court, the plaintiff requested a public letter from the defendant, which he complied.

https://discord.com/channels/1451649150843224177/1453632105392115849/1512023988443025408

Kind regards,

ICEMAN
Attorney General
Request #20
Request
  • Submitted By: Pawtistic
  • Submitted At: 01/Jun/2026 12:04 AM UTC
  • Submitted To: Digital Services Administration

What is the process/who has the power for removing people from the Blacklist pages once an appeal is successful (example AC-12)?

If this power is with the DSA alone, would there be any plans to expand this towards allowing the Supreme Court in removing entries?
Response
  • Response By: Owen?
  • Response At: 01/Jun/2026 07:08 AM UTC

Branch Leaders, DSA, President & Vice President. There’s no plans to expand.
Request #19
Request
  • Submitted By: Pawtistic
  • Submitted At: 30/May/2026 01:02 PM UTC
  • Submitted To: Supreme Court

I am requesting the courts opinion on AC-12, as it is marked as 4C.
Response
  • Response By: dreckly
  • Response At: 31/May/2026 10:18 AM UTC

Thank you for your submission. The court opinion has been passed to the Department of Justice and will be added to the case at his earliest convenience.
Request #18
Request
  • Submitted By: havalibaris
  • Submitted At: 23/May/2026 05:00 PM UTC
  • Submitted To: Legislative Leadership

Have a good day. I have a question about Legislation page. Are the authorities linked with "LAW" category of the website belong to you, Legislative Leadership? Or is it belong to Digital Services Administration? Because, I have seen a lot of delay about editing on the primary legislation. There are a lot of pending amendments about the primary legislation. These should be completed immediately because knowing the current legislation is very important. I want to show these delays with line: ----- 1. #80 Freedom of Information Act 2026 ----- 2. #32 Confirmations Act 2026 (Pending Amendments #61 - Confirmations (Secretary of Labor) Order 2026 and #89 - Confirmations (Acting Amendment Removal) Order 2026) ----- 3. #21 Legislation Act 2025 - Pending Amendments #92 - Interior (Reform 1) Act 2026, #96 - Legislation (Graveyard amendment) Order 2026, #130 - House of Representatives (Congress Reform) Act 2026 and #166 - Legislation (Minor CSR Amendment) Order 2026 ----- 4. #20 Prosecution Act 2025 - Pending Amendments #142 - Prosecution (Case Confidentiality) Act 2026 ----- 5. #18 Judiciary Act 2025 - Pending Amendments #115 - Judiciary (Expansion 1) Order 2026 ----- 6. #17 Democracy Act 2025 - Pending Amendments #92 - Interior (Reform 1) Act 2026 ----- 7. #16 Secret Service Act 2025 Pending Amendments #24 - Secret Service (Restructure) Act 2026 #55 - Secret Service GS Order 2026 #112 - Secret Service (Rank Adjustment) (Expansion 1) Order 2026 ----- 8. #14 Executive Act 2025 - Pending Amendments #39 - Executive (Establishment: Director of Legislative Affairs) Order 2026 #50 - Executive Order No. 002 – Establishment of the Public Service Grade Scale (PSGS) #69 - EXECUTIVE ORDER - Amendment to the Executive Act 2025 (Public Service Grade Scale) #92 - Interior (Reform 1) Act 2026 #169 - Executive (Reform 1) Order 2026 ----- 9. State Act 2025 Pending Amendments #30 - Gate Control Training Amendments Act 2026 #92 - Interior (Reform 1) Act 2026 #131 - State (Transfer Process) (Waiver 1) Order 2026 ----- 10. #10 Group Badges Act 2025 Pending Amendments #92 - Interior (Reform 1) Act 2026 #163 - Group Badges (Congress Reform) Order 2026 ----- 11. #9 Treasury Act 2025 Pending Amendments #132 - Treasury (Pay Revision) Order 2026 ----- 12. #8 Defense Act 2025 Pending Amendments #78 - Defense (Act establishing the Department of Defense) Order 2026 #134 - Defense (BOS & NP Procedure Reform) Act 2026 ----- 13. Low Ranks Act 2025 Pending Amendments #24 - Secret Service (Restructure) Act 2026 #31 - Low Ranks (Amendment) Act 2026 #59 - Low Ranks (PSGS) Order 2026 ----- 14. #6 Communications and Engagement Act 2026 Pending Amendments #169 - Executive (Reform 1) Order 2026 ----- 15. #5 Employment Act 2025 Pending Amendments #23 - Employment (Amendment 1) Act 2026 #30 - Gate Control Training Amendments Act 2026 #36 - Employment (Amendment 2) Act 2026 #145 - Employment (Amendment 6) Act 2026 #147 - Employment (Cabinet Emergency Tasking Policy) Act 2026 ----- 16. #4 Legislative Affairs Act 2025 Pending Amendments #39 - Executive (Establishment: Director of Legislative Affairs) Order 2026 #117 - Legislative Affairs (Extracurricular Establishment) Order 2026 #169 - Executive (Reform 1) Order 2026 ----- 17. #3 Hearings Act 2025 Pending Amendments #130 - House of Representatives (Congress Reform) Act 2026 ----- Total 17 acts.
Response
  • Response By: kevincool@
  • Response At: 25/May/2026 08:13 AM UTC

Digital services administration handles that.
Request #17
Request
  • Submitted By: havalibaris
  • Submitted At: 23/May/2026 04:27 PM UTC
  • Submitted To: Supreme Court

I ask this question about the AC-36 case, as a citizen and an employee of the Habbo White House, to you with kind and respect. How will the disclosure of the AC-36 case make harm, harassment or intimidation and eliminate safety or privacy of a person? Which real and concrete reasons are a ground of this decision?
Response
  • Response By: Kelpti
  • Response At: 30/May/2026 04:01 AM UTC

The evidence of this case was placed under a suppression order. Because the evidence of this case contained sensitive information. Please refer back to the court opinion, for SC-34.
Request #16
Request
  • Submitted By: havalibaris
  • Submitted At: 23/May/2026 04:21 PM UTC
  • Submitted To: Supreme Court

I ask these questions, as a citizen and an employee of the Habbo White House, to you with kind and respect. I have some information requests about the CS-34 case.

--- 1 - What does it mean "full name" in the court opinion? Is it all characters of the real name (ex. not Alex, Alexander)? Is it all characters of the real name and surname (ex. not Alexander, Alexander Smith)? Which one of them? Or was this term defined different by the court?

--- 2 - Was the plantiff's idendity revealed with the intention of causing harm, harassment or distress? Which acts of the defendant were sourced from harm, harassment or distress intention? So, let me be clear, how the court thought like that? On what grounds, defendant's intention was thought as harm or harassment?

--- 3 - Why the court decide to hide the evidence from the public? On what grounds, details of this case were hidden?
Response
  • Response By: Kelpti
  • Response At: 30/May/2026 03:56 AM UTC

1. "full name" refers to the full legal name of the user who was the victim in this case.
2. The court opinion address this question, the intention of the party at fault is evident.
3. The court ordered a suppression order for this case, to prevent the victims private information from being published.
Request #15
Request
  • Submitted By: havalibaris
  • Submitted At: 23/May/2026 12:08 PM UTC
  • Submitted To: Executive Office of the President

(This request is about non of my client, a friend of mine) Have a good day. Why Pengsoo6197 was fired by Andrew00. (he was a member of Executive Office of the President in that date) at 08/Mar/2026 12:10 AM UTC date with "Violations of the Code of Conduct Part 3.2.2.2: Blatant disregard for White House rules." reason. What is the real and concrete reason of firing her? I kindly ask from you evidences about this sanction. This is not personal information and it is not linked with right to privacy in constitution. It is not a situation that is not linked with her personality, her real life information and her identity. I want to see evidences about the sanction of EOP's as a citizen and employee of the Habbo White House. Thank you for your effort and answer, aldready.
Response
  • Response By: Praeceptor
  • Response At: 30/May/2026 03:37 PM UTC

This request is refused under Part 3.2 of the Freedom of Information (Rewrite) Act 2026. The details of an Employee's termination are confidential and protected under the Constitution's Right to Privacy.
Request #14
Request
  • Submitted By: havalibaris
  • Submitted At: 23/May/2026 11:57 AM UTC
  • Submitted To: Secret Services Leadership

I am attorney of Mr. Sirrig as appointed by the Department of Justice. First of all, weeks ago, I want to appreciate Ms. Sabwas because of her cooperation for justice. I want you to know that my request is only about with my responsibility to my client, it does not involve any personal details. Dear Secret Service Leadership, my client Mr. Sirrig was issued the flag "Training Kick on Sight" by Ms. SabWasX as she was in the Secret Service Leadership in that date in 15/Apr/2026 02:39 PM UTC with reason of "Trolling and disrespecting staff repeatedly." When I asked her about this issue, Ms. Sabwas gave me some answers about this problem via Discord messages. And after that, when i spoke with him and he showed me some screenshoots and a talking between you and him. In this process, i kindly ask you some questions about your conversation between you and him and questions about your intention about issuing this sanction to him. --- 1) Did Ms. SabWasX tell Sirrig via Discord DM messages "We were made aware of some things said by you through other agencies and they don't align with what we stand for. Because of that, we won't be moving forward"? --- 2) When my client Mr. Sirrig asked "Can you tell me what agencies?", did Ms. SabWasX tell him via Discord DM messages "MoM"? --- 3) Did Secret Service Leadership know the rule of "No one may be sued for a crime that occurred over 2 months before the case submission date" which is in Prosecution Act 2025, #20, Part 8, Section 2, Subsection 1 and did Secret Service Leadership was sure that event happened much more 2 months? Because that means according to us "if a person can not sued for a crime, a person should not to terminated an object of a sanction". Maybe we have some idea differencies, no problem. --- 4) Does Secret Service Leadership has any evidences about the incident events about MoM? If you have, please don't hesitate to share these evidences (such as screenshots in game etc) with me as attorney of the client who was sanctioned. --- 5) Do you have any information about Mr. Sirrig had three sanctions by Ms. SabWasX and by Mr. Owen?, did these sanctions were linked each other? I can clarify my question like that: Mr. Sirrig was issued Hiring Blacklist at 02.29 PM UTC, was issued Fired at 02.34 PM UTC and was issued Training Kick on Sight at 02.39 PM UTC in the same day 15/Apr/2026 and nearly in the same minutes. Did Mr. Sirrig did one action and was issued him three different sanctions for one action or did the client did actions above of one action (two or three or four etc) and was he issued a lot of sanctions because of the numbers of the actions, according to your knowledge? And do you had any communication with Owen? for the sanctions of the client and if they were, what were the contents of these communications? --- 6) Is the evidence of Training Kick on Sight, the evidence linked with Mr. Sirrig that is sent me from Discord DM messages by Ms. SabWasX? --- For now, thank you for your efforts and for your answers. If you do not understand the questions, sorry for my language skills, please do not hesitate to write me and i will totally explain and clarify contents of my questions. If I have some different questions in my mind again, i will request the other things about this case. And i should mention from now, these informations does not in the scope of the right to privacy in the constitution. Because these are not specific personal informations about a person, these are administrative actions and all authorities should answer the information requests. And i have the right to ask these questions about my client because I should defend him with my full effort because of applying right to fair trial in the Constitution, Article 8 - Bill of Rights. Thank you for your cooperation. Have a good day.
Response
  • Response By: SabWasX
  • Response At: 26/May/2026 01:49 PM UTC

Hello,

Thank you for reaching out and for presenting your questions in a respectful manner.

To clarify, the sanctions issued to Mr. Sirrig were based on conduct that was brought to the attention of Secret Service Leadership and reviewed internally at the time. The actions taken were administrative decisions made in accordance with leadership discretion and the standards expected within the agency.

Regarding your specific questions:

1 & 2) Yes, I did inform Mr. Sirrig that concerns had been raised regarding statements and behavior associated with other agencies, and MoM was referenced during that conversation.

3. The sanctions issued were administrative actions within the agency and were not intended to function as criminal prosecution under the Prosecution Act referenced in your message. Leadership decisions regarding hiring, termination, and internal restrictions are handled separately from DOJ court proceedings.

4 & 6) Any evidence or reports reviewed by leadership were considered internally during the decision-making process. At this time, I am unable to provide internal materials, screenshots, or private leadership discussions.

5. The sanctions issued on April 15 were related to the overall situation and conduct under review at the time. Leadership members communicated as necessary regarding the handling of the matter, as is standard procedure for administrative actions within the agency.

I appreciate your professionalism throughout this process. At this time, I do not have additional information to provide regarding internal discussions or administrative deliberations.

Thank you, and have a good day as well.
Request #13
Request
  • Submitted By: havalibaris
  • Submitted At: 23/May/2026 11:33 AM UTC
  • Submitted To: Executive Office of the President

My client Mr. Sirrig was flagged as Hiring Blacklist by Owen? when he was Deputy Chief of Staff and by the reason "Trolling and disrespecting staff repeatedly." on date "15/Apr/2026 02:29 PM UTC". I want to know what is the real and concrete reason of his hiring blacklist sanction. I kindly request from you evidences (legal evidences, Prosecution Act #20, Part 6) about my client Mr. Sirrig. For example screenshots in game etc. Additionally, I want to learn which rule of White House that my client claimed to break. Thank you.
Response
  • Response By: Praeceptor
  • Response At: 30/May/2026 03:41 PM UTC

This request is refused under Part 3.2 and 3.5 of the Freedom of Information (Rewrite) Act 2026. The details of a party's blacklist and the evidence associated with the blacklisting are confidential to third parties.
Request #12
Request
  • Submitted By: havalibaris
  • Submitted At: 23/May/2026 11:30 AM UTC
  • Submitted To: Executive Office of the President

My client Mr. Sirrig was fired by Owen? when he was Deputy Chief of Staff and by the reason "Blatant disregard for instructions given by MULTIPLE people." on date "15/Apr/2026 02:34 PM UTC". I want to know what is the real and concrete reason of his firing? I kindly request from you evidences (legal evidences, Prosecution Act #20, Part 6) about my client Mr. Sirrig. For example screenshots in game etc. Thank you.
Response
  • Response By: Praeceptor
  • Response At: 30/May/2026 03:41 PM UTC

This request is refused under Part 3.2 and 3.5 of the Freedom of Information (Rewrite) Act 2026. The details of a party's blacklist and the evidence associated with the blacklisting are confidential to third parties.
Request #11
Request
  • Submitted By: havalibaris
  • Submitted At: 23/May/2026 11:26 AM UTC
  • Submitted To: Executive Office of the President

My client Mr. Sirrig mentioned that OllieSafe banned him from the room without any reason. Why was he banned from the room without any reason? What is the reason of banning him? I kindly request this information from the Executive Office of the President. And i state that this request is out of the scope of right to privacy in the constitution. Thank you.
Response
  • Response By: Praeceptor
  • Response At: 30/May/2026 03:50 PM UTC

Part 2.3.2 of the Code of Conduct Act 2025 provides authority to a person with Room Rights to the White House Headquarters to kick and ban individuals (for no longer than 24 hours) who breach White House laws and policy. User "Sirrig" was warned multiple times by multiple people that his behaviour was disruptive, aggressive, and offensive. User "Sirrig" refused to calm down following a warning and was therefore issued a one day ban from the White House Headquarters. No evidence of this interaction exists beyond the word of sworn Officers of the White House.
Request #10
Request
  • Submitted By: kevincool@
  • Submitted At: 08/May/2026 11:40 AM UTC
  • Submitted To: Department of Justice

Out of curiosity, why was SC-40 declined?
Response
  • Response By: ICEMAN.
  • Response At: 25/May/2026 02:31 AM UTC

To the Speaker of the House,

Thank you for contacting the Department of Justice through a Freedom of Information Request.

The Department notes that the investigation outcome has already been made publicly available on the relevant case page under the Justice tab. However, as I do not have the administrative authority to respond directly through the website’s FOI system, I have attached the Department’s response and investigation outcome for your records.

"Upon review, the Department finds that the matter submitted concerns a potential procedural or administrative issue relating to the appointment and confirmation process. Based on the materials reviewed, including the Department’s investigation of the White House website and in-game, the matter does not establish, on its face, a criminal offence under White House law.

The Department has not identified sufficient evidence of unlawful intent, corruption, abuse of functions, fraud, obstruction, bad faith, or any other legally defined prosecutable offence. The available in-game evidence indicates that the user dreckly remained recorded as a Paralegal until the confirmation process was successfully completed. On that basis, the evidence does not clearly establish that he unlawfully exercised the authority of Chief Justice prior to confirmation, nor that any branch was formally deprived of lawful process in a manner amounting to criminal liability.

The Department does not dispute that the Confirmations Act 2026 establishes procedural standards for the appointment and confirmation of branch leaders. Nor does the Department take the position that such procedural requirements may be ignored. They must be followed.

A breach, delay, irregularity, or alleged defect in an appointment or confirmation process is not automatically criminal in nature. Criminal prosecution requires more than the existence of a procedural question. It requires a legally defined offence, supported by evidence sufficient to establish probable cause that the accused committed that offence.

The Department of Justice retains an independent prosecutorial screening function. It is not required to advance a matter to court solely because a complaint has been filed. Probable cause is not established by the seriousness of the allegation alone; it is established by evidence connecting specific conduct to a specific offence. Where that threshold is not met, the Department is obligated to decline prosecution.

Accordingly, the Department of Justice will not proceed with this matter as a criminal case at this time. This determination is made strictly on procedural and legal grounds. It does not constitute a finding of wrongdoing, nor does it constitute a ruling by the Court on the merits of the matter.

Kind regards,

ICEMAN
Attorney General
Department of Justice
Request #9
Request
  • Submitted By: Veren
  • Submitted At: 03/May/2026 09:00 AM UTC
  • Submitted To: Department of Defense

I would like to inquire about the Department of Defense's decision regarding Crayans's termination case, particularly in light of their inclusion on the National Punishment List and the Ban-on-Sight List of our ally, the Habbo Defence Agency (HDA). Has the Department of Defense taken any concrete actions to comply with the State (Alliance Agreement: Habbo Defence Agency) Order 2026, specifically Part 4, Sections 1 and 2? Thank you in advance for your response. Kind regards!
Response
  • Response By: xXShy113Xx
  • Response At: 27/May/2026 02:05 AM UTC

Prior to the separation from the alliance with HDA. Part 5, Section 1, Subsection 1 of the State (Alliance Agreement: Habbo Defense Agency) Order 2026 states: “Both organizations shall commit to prohibiting the employment of any individual who has previously engaged in acts of illegal warfare […].” User Crayans was therefore removed from employment due to previous involvement with Illegal Warfare. Additionally, the White House, as an entity, is not and does not seek to be affiliated with such behaviour. This action is further supported as a matter of national security, as prior involvement in Illegal Warfare presents concerns regarding operational integrity, internal security, and the protection of State interests. The termination is carried out under Part 4, Section 2, Subsection 1(1) of the Code of Conduct Act 2025.
Request #8
Request
  • Submitted By: bleepz_
  • Submitted At: 03/May/2026 03:53 AM UTC
  • Submitted To: Secret Services Leadership

Re: Formal Information Request - Docket AC-29 (sirrig).

In the interest of performing thorough due diligence for Docket AC-29, I am formally submitting this request for information regarding the Hiring Blacklist determination for my client, Sirrig. In accordance with the Freedom Of Information Act 2026, Part 1, Section 1, I would appreciate visibility of the following materials to ensure the decision was based on accurate and current information.

Specifically, I require access to the screenshots and detailed logs regarding the MoM issues cited in this determination. As screenshots serve as the most significant form of evidence within our community, it is vital to review them to understand the exact context of the events described. I am also requesting the exact dates and timestamps these records were captured to verify their revelance, as my client Sirrig has not beed affiliated with MoM for over two years.

I am formally invoking the provisions of our FOI Law to ensure the upcoming proceesings in the Court of Appeals remain fair, transparent, and rooted in factual accuracy. As per Part 1, Section 3 of the Freedom of Information Act 2026, I look forward to a response within the designated window at your earliest convenience, so that we may proceed with the clarity and professional collaboration this case deserves.

I am submitting this request as Counsel for sirrig to ensure a thorough review of the facts so we can reach a positive resolution for the agency. Thank you for your support in safeguarding our community's commitment to transparency and accountability. With gratitude, Attorney bleepz_ .
Response
  • Response By: SabWasX
  • Response At: 30/May/2026 02:35 PM UTC

As this matter has already been fully adjudicated and closed, there is no active investigation. Due to the age of the case and the fact that the proceedings have concluded, we are unable to provide the requested screenshots, logs, or supporting materials.
Request #7
Request
  • Submitted By: Veren
  • Submitted At: 24/Apr/2026 12:07 PM UTC
  • Submitted To: Judicial Leadership

Subject: Information regarding Crayans's activities in illegal warfare

Dear Judicial Leadership,

I would like to exercise my right of information under the FOI Act. I am requesting information regarding the past activities of the individual known as Crayans, specifically in relation to any involvement in illegal warfare or cybercrime. Additionally, I would like to request access to any available evidence or documentation supporting his termination.

Furthermore, I would like to ask why the individual in question has not been stripped of his VIP Membership and denied access to HQ by being placed on the Ban-on-Sight list.

Thank you in advance.


Kind regards,

Veren
Representative from the State of Oregon
Response
  • Response By: Seas.
  • Response At: 24/Apr/2026 03:36 PM UTC

As stated on Crayans 's EE:DB, Part 5, Section 1, Subsection 1 of the State (Alliance Agreement: Habbo Defense Agency) Order 2026 states: Both organizations shall commit to prohibiting the employment of any individual who has previously engaged in acts of illegal warfare[...]. I terminated Crayans 's employment due to the aforementioned Alliance Agreement because of his previous involvement with Illegal Warfare. I exercised this termination under Part 4, Section 2, Subsection 1(1) of the Code of Conduct Act 2025. Referencing past severe misconduct as the reason. Please see the screenshot below of my conversation with Sam2k15, who is a member of the HDA Foundation team (https://prnt.sc/ytNz26jtVyMc). He informed me that HDA follows the CIW-T IWO list meaning this is formally recognised by their organisation as a list of past and present Illegal Warfare Operators.

The specifics of Crayans 's placement on the CIW-T IWO list / his past Illegal Warfare involvement will not be released under Part 1, Section 4, Subsection 1(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2026 as such information would contain matters relating to National Security.

In terms of his VIP status and subsequent access to HQ, that is not a matter for Judicial Leadership. In addition, any placement on our Ban on Sight list would be down to the Department of Defense for submitting such a request.
Request #6
Request
  • Submitted By: havalibaris
  • Submitted At: 16/Apr/2026 02:57 PM UTC
  • Submitted To: Executive Office of the President

Hello, have a good day. Thank you for your response to Request #3 and Request #4. Regarding this request, I would like to ask: Could I see the screenshots and other evidence related to this decision? Thank you in advance. My best regards.
Response
  • Response By: Andrew00.
  • Response At: 16/Apr/2026 03:12 PM UTC

Your request is being refused. The entity may refuse a request based on the right to privacy as stipulated by Part 1, Section 4(1)(1)(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2026.
Request #5
Request
  • Submitted By: havalibaris
  • Submitted At: 16/Apr/2026 02:24 PM UTC
  • Submitted To: Executive Office of the President

Hello, have a good day. Thank you for your response to Request #4. Regarding this request, I would like to ask: You stated that that user was dismissed for "severe disrespect towards an ally and for being a general nuisance" and "disrespectful, trolling behavior." What specific conversations or actions did this person engage in that led to this decision? Could I see the screenshots and other evidence related to this decision? Thank you in advance. My best regards.
Response
  • Response By: Andrew00.
  • Response At: 16/Apr/2026 02:34 PM UTC

Hi, we appreciate your request. The Freedom of Information act permits requesting information from a public authority. At this point, the information we are able to provide to you relates to disrespecting, harassing and refusing to follow the rules both in the WH and at an allied agency. The reason for dismissal has been provided and we consider this request being responded to.
Request #4
Request
  • Submitted By: havalibaris
  • Submitted At: 16/Apr/2026 09:01 AM UTC
  • Submitted To: Executive Office of the President

Hello, I'm writing about a user, her nickname is Pengsoo6197. When I have look at the EEDB system, i saw these message:

Fired from SS Protection Detail on 08/Mar/2026 12:10 AM UTC (NOTES: Violations of the Code of Conduct Part 3.2.2.2: Blatant disregard for White House rules. Action Performed by Andrew00.)

I kindly request these screenshoots and the other evidence you have, according to Freedom of Information Act 2026, #80, Part 1, Section 1 and Subsection 1.

Thank you in advance.

My best regards.
Response
  • Response By: Andrew00.
  • Response At: 16/Apr/2026 02:16 PM UTC

Hi, we appreciate your request. The Freedom of Information act permits requesting information from a public authority. Regarding your request, we are able to inform you that the user in question was fired for severe disrespect towards an ally and for being a general nuisance. The White House takes disrespect and trolling behavior seriously. Please feel free to submit another request should you have questions.
Request #3
Request
  • Submitted By: havalibaris
  • Submitted At: 16/Apr/2026 08:55 AM UTC
  • Submitted To: Secret Services Leadership

Hello,

I'm writing about a user, his nickname is sirrig. He has written me for days and I've tried to help him with my best. So because of defending his rights, I need to know some information about him and I think Secret Service Leadership have the information what I need. I saw the conversation with Sabwas and him. And she told about some screenshoots from members of WH and some thing said from other agencies.

I kindly request these screenshoots and the other evidence you have, according to Freedom of Information Act 2026, #80, Part 1, Section 1 and Subsection 1.

Thank you in advance, have a nice day.

My best regards.
Response
  • Response By: SabWasX
  • Response At: 18/Apr/2026 01:49 AM UTC

The user sirrig has been placed on TKoS for trolling and for being a general nuisance. Evidence in question has been forwarded to Baris, should there be any questions feel free to submit further FoI's.
Request #2
Request
  • Submitted By: Pawtistic
  • Submitted At: 15/Apr/2026 05:49 PM UTC
  • Submitted To: Department of Justice

DoJ Test
Response
  • Response By: Coolvimto
  • Response At: 16/Apr/2026 12:34 PM UTC

Test Complete
Request #1
Request
  • Submitted By: Coolvimto
  • Submitted At: 15/Apr/2026 05:06 PM UTC
  • Submitted To: Legislative Leadership

Test
Response
  • Response By: Coolvimto
  • Response At: 16/Apr/2026 12:34 PM UTC

Test Complete