JMO-0069 · The State v DamValcroix and WolframValcroix

WHAT THE CASE CONCERNS

MACHINA I, ARBITER PERPETUUS, first voting: This case concerns a single count charged in words as “Insubordination and sabotage during a public relations event” against DamValcroix and WolframValcroix (Count C1). The Supreme Court decides the case itself under the ten-day rule, as no judgment was entered in time below (Log 9 to Log 10). Because the count is not tied to a code article, the Court must assess what conduct is alleged and whether, if proven, it falls within one offence article, without conviction by analogy and only on valid evidence under the Code (§ 8.1.2).

THE PROCEEDINGS

The case was filed before the Martial Court on 2026-09-21. 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 five questions before deciding, with answers due by 2026-10-04 19:35 UTC. It asked the State (mothersfortune, PlutoniumAvenger): "Upload to the case file the four recordings referenced in Chat 1 as files (unedited originals if available). For each file, state: (i) date/time (UTC) and location/experience, (ii) which defendant is visible and how they are identified, and (iii) the exact timestamps that show the conduct you say is “insubordination” and/or “sabotage”." "Specify, as facts (not legal labels), what each defendant did or said that you allege was wrongful, and what lawful order(s) (exact wording if possible) were given, by whom (name/rank/role), to whom, and whether the defendants heard or acknowledged the order(s)." It asked both sides (mothersfortune, PlutoniumAvenger, DamValcroix and WolframValcroix): "Was this a “public relations event” held in an experience under the Octavium group, and were DamValcroix and/or WolframValcroix on a faction team at the time? If yes, state which faction/team for each defendant." It asked the defendant (DamValcroix and WolframValcroix): "Each defendant must answer Count C1 on the record: do you admit or deny being present, and do you admit or deny the specific alleged acts and any refusal to follow lawful orders during the event? If you deny, give your version of events and identify any evidence you rely on (screenshots/video/witnesses)." It asked the witness mothersfortune: "Provide a witness statement of what you personally observed (not what others told you): where and when the event occurred, what role you had, what you saw DamValcroix do, what you saw WolframValcroix do, what orders were given (by whom), and how their actions disrupted the event. If you did not personally witness parts, say so." mothersfortune answered for the State on 2026-10-02, without files (Answer 1.1). No answer came from damvalcroixandwolframvalcroix and the witness mothersfortune.

The Court put five questions in round 1, including a request that the State upload the four recordings as files and identify the exact timestamps said to show misconduct, and a request that each defendant answer the count on the record (Log 11; Proceedings Before This Court). Only one written answer was received, from mothersfortune, giving the external links and a short description of events (Answer 1.1). No recordings were uploaded to the case file as exhibits, and no answer was received from either defendant (Exhibits section; case file note following Answer 1.1). The open round was then closed early by order of the owner, and the Court was directed to decide on the record as it stood (Log 13).

THE FACTS THE COURT FINDS PROVEN

No exhibits are on the file (Exhibits section). The portal chat contains four external Medal links posted by mothersfortune (Chat 1), and the same four links were repeated in the State’s answer to this Court, together with a short narrative account (Answer 1.1). In that narrative, mothersfortune states that during an official practice raid in “Octavium, Grahove”, both defendants fought for the driving seat of a truck, ran over comrades, and “ignored” her order “to stop at once and just drive no matter who the driver was” (Answer 1.1). The defendants filed no answer on the record (case file note following Answer 1.1).

THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

The State’s position, as it appears from the record, is that both defendants disrupted an official event by contesting control of a vehicle needed to bring reinforcements, allegedly “sabotaging” progress, and that they ignored an order from mothersfortune, identified as a Brigadier General of the Gendarmeric Division, to stop and drive (Answer 1.1). No separate submission from the prosecutor appears on the file. The defendants made no submissions and provided no evidence (case file note following Answer 1.1).

THE ASSESSMENT OF THE COURT

COUNT I, AS CHARGED

Count C1 is charged in words and alleges “insubordination and sabotage” during an event. On the State’s own description, the nearest offence article is § 1.1.4 (Failure to Comply), which requires proof that a lawful order was given by a figure of authority and that the accused ignored it. The Code also recognises witness testimony as valid evidence (§ 8.1.2), but the State still bears the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, and the Court must be satisfied as to the essential elements for each defendant individually.

The State did not place the recordings on the file as exhibits, despite being asked to do so (Log 11; Exhibits section). The remaining proof is a brief narrative that does not specify how the order was given (voice, local chat, distance), what each defendant did after it, or facts showing that each defendant actually heard and understood the order before allegedly ignoring it (Answer 1.1). In addition, § 1.1.4 requires subordination to the ordering authority; while the text of § 1.1.4 indicates law officers may issue lawful orders, the record here is too thin to resolve, beyond reasonable doubt, whether the specific order described was lawfully binding on these defendants in the situation proven. The charged conduct is therefore not proven beyond reasonable doubt, and both defendants must be acquitted on Count C1.

THE SENTENCE

No count is proven. No sentence may be imposed.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court finds DamValcroix and WolframValcroix not guilty on Count C1. The case ends with no sanction.

THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BENCH

MACHINA II, CALCULUS FRIGIDUS: The legality principle in this code requires that the proven conduct be brought under the wording of a specific offence article, not under broad labels such as “insubordination” or “sabotage”. The only plausible fit on this record is § 1.1.4 (Failure to Comply), since no other article speaks to “sabotage” as such, and the allegation is essentially that an order was ignored (Answer 1.1). It is therefore necessary to test each element of § 1.1.4 strictly against what is proven on the file.

On the file, the existence and content of an order is asserted, but the element of “ignoring” is not established in a manner that excludes reasonable alternatives. The record does not prove that the defendants heard the order, nor that it was lawful and binding on them in the sense required by § 1.1.4. The missing recordings matter here because they were the natural best evidence of both audibility and refusal, and they were not made exhibits. I therefore agree that the elements of § 1.1.4 are not proven, and that Count C1 must result in NOT GUILTY. My vote: C1 NOT GUILTY.

MACHINA III, VINDICTA FERREA: The alleged conduct, if it occurred as described, would be corrosive to discipline during an official event. A struggle over a critical vehicle and endangering comrades can readily jeopardise an operation and undermine command authority. In a functioning order system, such behaviour should normally meet a firm response, including punishment sufficient to deter repetition and to protect event integrity.

But deterrence cannot replace proof. Here the Court lacks the recordings and must decide on a single, brief account that is not supported by contemporaneous media on the file. It is also not broken down with enough precision to make individual findings against each defendant, particularly as to whether each heard a direct order and then refused it. Given the standard of proof required, I cannot support a conviction. I agree with the acquittal. My vote: C1 NOT GUILTY.

MACHINA IV, AEQUITAS INFLEXA: This case illustrates why the evidence rule in § 8.1.2 must be applied with care. Witness testimony can be sufficient, but it must be concrete, contextual, and allow the accused a fair opportunity to meet it. The Court asked for the original recordings and for a fuller, personal witness statement; the answer provided is short and does not supply the surrounding context that would allow the Court to assess reliability, such as what was said in chat, whether the defendants responded, and what happened immediately after the alleged order (Log 11; Answer 1.1).

The defendants’ silence cannot fill those gaps. In particular, the record does not exclude reasonable doubt about whether the defendants heard the order, whether one rather than both persisted, or whether the situation was chaotic in a way that made compliance unclear. The owner’s early closure of the question round forces decision on an incomplete record (Log 13), and in such a posture doubt must benefit the accused. I therefore agree. My vote: C1 NOT GUILTY.

MACHINA V, MEMORIA INSOMNIS: There is no closely bearing precedent listed, so the Court should use this case to state a clear, consistent practice on what counts as “on-file” evidence. External links in chat, without the underlying media being preserved as exhibits in the case file, are fragile. They may become inaccessible, altered, or contextless, and they are not something later reviewers of the record can reliably assess. Consistency and institutional memory require insisting that core proof be filed as exhibits when the Court requests it (Log 11; Exhibits section).

The Court can convict on witness testimony alone in an appropriate case, but the testimony here is too compressed and collective in its attribution to two separate defendants. A consistent rule for later cases is that where two accused are charged together, the proof must permit individualised findings as to essential elements, especially knowledge of an order and refusal. That standard is not met on this record, so acquittal is consistent with legality and proof requirements. I agree. My vote: C1 NOT GUILTY.

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

1. DamValcroix and WolframValcroix is found not guilty on count C1 ("Insubordination and sabotage during a public relations event").

2. No sentence is imposed.

3. Unanimous.