Post

Regional Court Announcement
5/4/2024 | 4/5/2024

The Court has finalized a unanimous decision to accept the Plaintiff's Revised Petition.

After a brief deliberation, all Justices have agreed to accept WAF's Revised Petition for the following reasons:
1) The Plaintiff did not have an assigned legal counsel at the time that they requested for the Court to hear their contest on their Third CoC Strike. For reasons grounded on a principle of fairness and good faith intent from the Court, we have to ensure that all parties are able to utilize their guaranteed access to legal resources prior to the finalization of any complaint to the Court.

2) Arbitrarily declining the Plaintiff the opportunity to contest different CoC Strikes during the beginning of this Case would be an exercise in unnecessary bureaucratic delaying. In this case, we have not identified any legal basis for such an action and thus will accept the revision with no modifications.

3) It is in the spirit of the Judicial Code of Conduct to be as fair as possible in decision-making, as well as acting in Good Faith, so this decision is a natural one and is consistent with established Court values.

Below, we will be publishing the accepted Revised Petition from the Plaintiff. This action will enter in the Court's records and officially end the 24-Hour Deliberation Period and commence the Three-Day Preparation Period so that both parties can start officially working on their arguments, collecting evidence, and gathering relevant testimonies.

The Plaintiff's Revised Petition contests their 1st & 2nd CoC Strikes and drops a contest on their 3rd CoC Strike. It reads as follows:

>>>> Plaintiff's Revised Petition to the Court <<<<
Justices of the Court,

After telegramming with Vordoslavia, it is their wish to revise their initial petition to instead contest their 1st & 2nd CoC Strikes. Within the 24-Hour Revision Period granted, he has reconsidered his legal strategy and asked the Court to consider this request. The Plaintiff is challenging his 1st CoC Strike on the grounds that it was not a transphobic action when he suppressed the post in question, shown by his response to NUCL on the RMB on page 8,978 expressing that his intentions were not transphobic, also saying that he suppress it because many people are not happy with the decision that it was on Easter. He acknowledges the community effect of that perception.

The Plaintiff is challenging his 2nd CoC Strike on the grounds that the government failed to follow the Court’s precedence set in Case #1: The Martian Democracy v. TRTHNBB. In the court’s “Reasonable Interpretation” test, it is stated that properly issued CoC Strikes are “... requiring a consensus of at least two members of the Administration before the official issuing a strike (with both signing off on it) …”, which did not happen since America the Greater was the only moderator who signed off on the strike before it was issued, as shown in the CoC Log. This error in procedure goes against court precedence and should be grounds for reversing the strike.

Western Arba Fir
Plaintiff’s Counsel

Final Arguments & Collection of Evidence must be submitted by 11:59 pm EST on May 7th, 2024
Collecting all evidence and testimony into one Google Doc for Judicial Review is highly recommended. We will be assigning each piece of evidence a unique identifier that can be referenced later on in the Trial process. You may choose to share this document with the Justices at any point prior to the deadline to receive the unique identifiers before the 24-Hour Evidence Review Period. Either party in this case may submit challenges prior to this period, which will be made possible by a Court controlled Evidence Google Doc that will contain the Unique Identifiers and content of the evidence. Challenges will be heard on May 8.