JMO-0067 · The State v WonderLlywelyn

WHAT THE CASE CONCERNS

MACHINA I, ARBITER PERPETUUS, first voting: This case concerns a prosecution brought by the State against WonderLlywelyn for a single count framed in words. The alleged conduct is that the defendant told a commanding officer and that officer’s executive officer to kill themselves after being dismissed. The matter reached this Court because no judgment was entered below within the transfer period stated in the case log, so the Machina Bench must decide on the record as it stands. The decisive issues are what the screenshots prove about authorship, direction, and context, and whether the proven conduct matches the charged description to the criminal standard.

THE PROCEEDINGS

The case was filed before the Imperial Prosecution Bureau on 2026-09-15. No judgment was entered within ten days, although a judge had been seated. Notice was given in the case room and on the case log on 2026-10-01 that this Court would take the case unless a judgment was entered. On 2026-10-02 the Supreme Court took the case under the ten-day rule, and it has decided it on the case file.

On 2026-10-03, by order of the owner, the Court closed the questions and decided the case on the evidence on the file. A party's silence was not treated as proof either way.

On 2026-10-02 the Court put four questions before deciding, with answers due by 2026-10-04 19:35 UTC. It asked the defendant (WonderLlywelyn): "Do you admit or deny that you (WonderLlywelyn / “Wonder Valcroix”) sent the messages shown in Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2, including “kys …”? If you deny, state specifically whether you dispute authorship (not you), accuracy (edited/cropped), or context (not directed at the complainant/XO), and provide any supporting evidence under § 8.1.2." "State your account of what happened immediately before the messages in Exhibits 1, 2, including whether you had just been dismissed or demoted from executive officer, by whom, and in which chat or platform. If you claim any permission, immunity, or other defence, specify it and provide supporting evidence under § 8.1.2." It asked the State (appa6339, PlutoniumAvenger): "For each of Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2, upload the original unedited screenshot(s) (or a full scroll capture) showing the channel or group chat name, date, and surrounding messages (at least 10 lines before and after), so the Court can assess context and whether the statements were made after the dismissal and to whom they were directed." "Provide witness testimony (names and short statements) from the people present in the relevant group chat(s) confirming (a) the defendant was dismissed/demoted immediately before the messages, (b) the messages were directed at the commanding officer and the executive officer, and (c) which persons those were at the time. Identify which exhibit each witness relates to." No answer was received.

Before deciding, the Court opened round 1 and asked the defendant to admit or deny authorship and explain the surrounding context, and asked the State to upload unedited originals with the group chat name, date, and at least ten lines before and after, and to provide short witness testimony confirming roles, timing, and direction (Log 13). The record states that these questions were delivered by message and in the case room, but the open round was then closed early by order of the owner and no answers were received from either side (Log 14). The absence of the requested context and witness proof limits what can be found proven beyond reasonable doubt.

THE FACTS THE COURT FINDS PROVEN

The State has filed two screenshots from a Discord conversation. In Exhibit 1, after AppaLlywelyn writes a message addressing “@Wonder Valcroix” and telling him to leave the group chat, the user “Wonder Valcroix” posts “kys …” followed by further insults, and later leaves the group (Exhibit 1). In Exhibit 2, the same user “Wonder Valcroix” posts “kys …” and further insults in an exchange with “Belmov De Valcroix” (Exhibit 2).

The exhibits, as filed, do not show the name of the Discord channel or group chat, the date, or a fuller scroll of surrounding messages beyond the limited portion captured. They also do not, on their face, establish the offices or roles of the persons involved, beyond what can be inferred from usernames and the content of the visible lines (Exhibit 1, Exhibit 2). The case record shows that this Court put questions to both sides seeking originals, context, and witness confirmation, but that the round was closed early by order of the owner and no answers were received (Log 13, Log 14).

THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

The State’s position in the filing is that the defendant told the complainant and the complainant’s executive officer to kill themselves in group chats after the complainant dismissed the defendant from the executive officer role. The State relies on Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 as screenshots of the defendant’s statements and submits that the statements were made in the presence of senior persons in the relevant chats (Filing; Exhibit 1; Exhibit 2).

The defendant has filed no answer on the record. The defendant did not respond to this Court’s questions about whether he admits authorship or contests accuracy or context, and did not provide any account or defence (Log 13; Log 14). The Court therefore decides on the evidence as filed, without drawing any inference of guilt from the silence.

THE ASSESSMENT OF THE COURT

COUNT I, AS CHARGED

The count is framed in words. The Court is bound by the conduct described, namely that the defendant told a commanding officer and that officer’s executive officer to kill themselves, and that this occurred after the defendant was dismissed. Under § 8.1.2, screenshots may be valid evidence, but the Court must still assess what they actually show, whether they could be incomplete, and whether the charge’s factual description is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Exhibits 1 and 2 prove that the user “Wonder Valcroix” sent messages containing “kys …” and other insults in a Discord chat exchange (Exhibit 1; Exhibit 2). The exhibits do not, however, show enough surrounding conversation to fix the addressee of the “kys …” line in Exhibit 1 with the required certainty, nor do they prove that the persons addressed were, at the time, the commanding officer and executive officer described in the count. The exhibits also do not show, beyond reasonable doubt, that the “kys …” messages were sent after the described dismissal rather than during an argument leading up to it. The State was asked to cure these gaps with originals and witness testimony, but none was received after the round was closed early (Log 13; Log 14). On this record, the specific conduct charged is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the defendant must be acquitted on C1.

THE SENTENCE

No count is proved. No sanction may be imposed.

CONCLUSION

The defendant is found NOT GUILTY on Count C1. The case is thereby concluded.

THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BENCH

MACHINA II, CALCULUS FRIGIDUS: The starting point is legality. The count is drafted with concrete qualifiers: the targets are “a commanding officer and his executive officer” and the timing is “after being dismissed”. Those are not surplus words. They narrow the alleged act and must be proved as charged if a conviction is to be entered.

Exhibits 1 and 2 show offensive language including “kys …”, but neither exhibit shows office, chain of command, or even the identity of an executive officer, other than usernames. The filing asserts roles, yet an assertion is not evidence under § 8.1.2. When the Court itself asked for contextual screenshots and witness proof and received none, the legal elements implicit in the charged description remain unproven. I therefore agree that C1 is not proved and vote NOT GUILTY.

MACHINA III, VINDICTA FERREA, dissenting: The record shows the defendant posting “kys …” in two exchanges, alongside escalating insults. Even if the count’s added narrative about dismissal and office is not fully substantiated, the core wrongful act described is telling the complainant and the complainant’s executive officer to kill themselves. On the face of Exhibit 1, the “kys …” message follows immediately after the complainant addresses the defendant by tag and orders him to leave. That is sufficient, in my view, to treat the “kys …” response as directed at the complainant.

Exhibit 2 shows “kys …” and further insults in an exchange with “Belmov De Valcroix”. The filing states this person was the executive officer. The defendant offered no denial, and the Court’s inability to obtain further context was due to the owner’s order closing the round early (Log 14), not State neglect alone. I would therefore find C1 proved and classify it under § 4.1.1 Harassment as a single occurrence of severe insult, and impose a substantial sanction within the code, including a rank lock and a ban period. My vote is GUILTY on C1.

MACHINA IV, AEQUITAS INFLEXA: The standard is no reasonable doubt. Here, the screenshots are narrow crops. They do not show the chat name, date, or a fuller thread. That matters because the count depends on direction and timing: whether the “kys …” statements were made to the commanding officer and the executive officer, and whether they followed a dismissal.

The Court asked for exactly the missing material. None was received, and the question round was closed early (Log 13; Log 14). I cannot exclude reasonable possibilities that the screenshots omit lines identifying a different target, or that the “after being dismissed” narrative is mistaken or inverted in sequence. Without corroborating witness testimony or full capture, the burden is not met. I therefore vote NOT GUILTY on C1.

MACHINA V, MEMORIA INSOMNIS: Consistency in this system requires that convictions rest on clear proof of the charged incident, especially when the charge is drafted in words rather than anchored to a specific article. Earlier guidance emphasises that procedural shortcuts and incomplete records can affect outcome, and the accused must have a real opportunity to contest what is alleged ([JMO-0043]; § 8.1.3).

Here, the Court did seek clarification from both sides, but the round was closed early by order of the owner, leaving gaps about context, identity, and timing (Log 13; Log 14). In such a posture, the safest and most consistent rule is that the State must still prove the charge as framed, and if it cannot, acquittal follows even where the language shown is plainly unacceptable. I therefore agree with NOT GUILTY on C1.

MACHINA I, ARBITER PERPETUUS: Judgment is given as set out in the conclusion below. Judgment is given by four votes to one. Decided by the Supreme Court of the Imperium under the ten-day rule.

1. WonderLlywelyn is found not guilty on count C1 ("Telling a commanding officer and his executive officer to kill themselves after being dismissed").

2. No sentence is imposed.

3. Given by four votes to one.