Overview

• Type of Hearing: Criminal

• Submitted: 2 weeks ago (10/Aug/2026 02:27:58 AM UTC)
• Hearing Location:
• Hearing Verdict:

• Date Scheduled:
• Time Scheduled:

Information

I am filing a criminal complaint against Attorney General ICEMAN. for violating the following laws:

1. Part 1, Section 6 of the Crimes Act 2025, also known as Perversion of Justice, specifically under the third definition: “Purposely preventing any legal process,” for declining cases AC-57, AC-59 and AC-113 when it had no statutory authority to do so, and suppressing information that should be demandable by counsel in relation to SC-65;
2. Part 1, Section 17 of the Crimes Act 2025, also known as Perversion of Rights, for infringing upon fierycomet’s constitutionally-protected right to a fair trial;
3. Part 1, Section 7 of the Crimes Act 2025, also known as Negligence of Duties for failing to reasonably schedule cases SC-65 and AC-106.

Being the leader of the Department of Justice, the Attorney General is accountable for departmental decisions.

The Department of Justice, throughout several cases, has demonstrated its inability to exercise its administrative duties either by incorrect interpretation and application of the law or severe delays.

In relation to AC-57, AC-59, and AC-113, the DOJ has repeatedly declined appellate cases, preventing them to reach the Court of Appeals. The Prosecution contends that the statutory provision used by the DOJ in declining these appeal cases pertains to criminal cases. Further, Part 2, Section 4, Subsection 1, Clause 1 of the Prosecution Act 2025 states: Any CoA only has the power to authorise or decline any appeal. The declination of the DOJ in these cases are not only an absurd reading of powers of the DOJ but a usurpation of the authority of the Court. This usurpation of authority extends to the improper and highly irregular decision of the DOJ to require the appellant to produce evidence to substantiate claims for an appeal.

In relation to SC-65, the DOJ had a legal duty to provide the Defense with the accusation and prosecution materials before the case began. The Defense repeatedly sought clarification of the specific charge and evidence. Despite that obligation, the information was not provided within the required procedural period. In fact, the evidence containing several images were only sent an hour before the supposed hearing date.

In relation to SC-65 and AC-106, the DOJ has demonstrated negligence in its administrative task of scheduling cases by failing to reasonably communicate with the Court and parties – leading to an absurd rescheduling of only a few minutes before they began.

The prosecution demands that the Attorney General take command responsibility for the serious technical lapses the Department of Justice has committed in relation to the cases above-mentioned.

Evidence provided are screenshots from the White House website, a screenshot from the Habbo client, and Discord conversations. The Prosecution requests an ethics board to certify pieces of evidence for the Discord conversations to be accepted into court.

STATEMENT TO THE ETHICS BOARD

In the evidence submitted, you will find my conversations with Solicitor General notsyam who has been in communication with the Attorney General pertaining to departmental decisions critical to the establishment that the AG had been supplying wrong information to the SG leading to the wrong application of the law.

You will also find conversations pertaining to the scheduling of cases where the Attorney General has failed to reply within a reasonable timeframe, leading to the Court unable to proceed even though the Justices have indicated their schedules.

I understand that real-life matters may prevent us from immediately replying but if one would be unable to reply for a week, the department leader ought to delegate the task to their subordinate.

But everyone was waiting for the AG’s response leading to the delay in scheduling.

As a former Attorney General during the Second Republic of the White House, scheduling of cases with the Justices of the Supreme Court requires the DOJ to be communicative with all parties and the Court in order to speedily dispose of the case.

Unfortunately, this was not the case with our current Attorney General. Hence, the case being brought against him and this ethics board certification.

Location: White House Website, Discord, "» The White House » Pays 2c Hourly » JOBS" owned by “Praeceptor"
Date: Multiple dates of DOJ decisions and communications made between June 11, 2026 up to August 10, 2026