22nd Supreme Court
The 22nd Supreme Court was appointed by Secretary New Samon and confirmed by citizens in individual confidence votes. This consisted of three Standing Justices and one Alternate Justice, and each served a three-month term from 22 June to 23 September 2021. The final members of the 22nd Supreme Court were Chief Justice New Arkados, Minor Justices Eloren and Grod Island, and Alternate Justice Super Awesome Fun Times.
| ← 21st — 22nd — 23rd → | |
 | |
| Leadership | |
|---|---|
| Chief Justice | New Arkados |
| Dates | |
| Start | 22 June 2021 |
| End | 23 September 2021 |
Members
Confirmations
Initial
The following were the results of the confidence votes on Secretary New Samon's initial appointees to the Supreme Court:
| Position | Appointee | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Standing Justice | Eloren | 36-0 (6) |
| Grod Island | 38-0 (4) | |
| New Arkados | 35-0 (7) | |
| Alternate Justice | Super Awesome Fun Times | 36-0 (6) |
As a result, all four appointees were confirmed to their posts.
Court verdicts
Banjection of Ludwigsburg
A trial request against Ludwigsburg, presented by Chief Justice New Arkados, was filed on 25 August 2021 with 11 alleged counts of "Spamming or trolling that disrupts regional activity or personal communications".[1] The Supreme Court unanimously agreed to the hosting of a trial on 26 August, and New Arkados contacted all parties involved to confirm a trial date.[2]
However, before a date for the trial could be confirmed or announced, Ludwigsburg publicly insisted on 27 August that the trial be held on the RMB, before reversing course later that day and informing the Court they would "accept punishment without a trial". The Court ultimately issued Ludwigsburg a banjection of 2 weeks from 30 August 2021 in a unanimous decision,[3] citing historical precedent for the crime's severity and punishment from the Tobostan v. Llorens (2018) verdict, though Alternate Justice Super Awesome Fun Times also noted that Ludwigsburg's actions had continued throughout the prosecution process and were likely intentional, indicating "the precedent isn't exactly the same".
Notes
- ↑ A violation under Section 1.m of the Criminal Offense Act
- ↑ Court procedure as defined by Sections 2.b and 3.a of the Judicial Process Act, with public notice of the trial intended to be issued "at least one day before it commences"; commencement of this particular case's trial was never confirmed
- ↑ Punishment issued as per Section 1 of the Criminal Offense Act