JMO-0076 · ebupro9093 v The State

WHAT THE CASE CONCERNS

MACHINA I, ARBITER PERPETUUS, first voting: This case concerns an appeal filed by ebupro9093 against an in game jail sentence, described by the appellant as thirty five minutes for a murder charge. The filing also contains allegations that Inspectorate officers transported the appellant without consent and failed to comply with arrest protocol, and it seeks that those officers be arrested. The case reached this Court under the seven-day rule. The appellant subsequently requested to withdraw the appeal, stating that he no longer needed an appeal. The question for decision is whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn, or whether the record shows a reason of order that requires this Court nevertheless to decide the appeal on the merits.

THE PROCEEDINGS

The case was filed before the Appeals Court on 2026-10-14. No judgment had been entered. On 2026-10-19 the Supreme Court took the case by order of the owner, and it has decided it on the case file.

The Court put no questions to the parties. By order of the owner it decided the case on the evidence on the file.

This Court has not put questions to the parties. Under the sitting instruction, the Court may not ask questions and must decide on the record as it stands (This Sitting).

THE FACTS THE COURT FINDS PROVEN

The appeal was filed on 2026-10-14 and later passed on by a clerk, with no judgment entered below within seven days (Log 1; Log 7; Log 10). The appellant submitted a screenshot showing an arrest screen stating charges as murder, sentence as thirty five minutes, officer as NickGoertzmann, and a reason text stating that an officer was killed during a traffic stop (Exhibit 5). The appellant also submitted screenshots of a passport and a gun licence in his own name (Exhibit 1; Exhibit 2). The appellant posted a written withdrawal request stating: “Dont need an appeal anymore” (Log 9). No submission was filed by the State in the portal chat, and the file contains no other response from the State (Chat; Case file generally).

THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

In the filing, the appellant states that Inspectorate officers stopped him for papers, told him to enter their car, stated he would work as a lumber, and later threatened him. He states he defended himself and was then sentenced to thirty five minutes for one count of murder, which he claims is unjust. He invokes § 2.1.8 (Kidnapping) and § 8.1.1 (Arrest Protocol) and seeks that the murder charge be taken down and the Inspectorate officers be arrested (Filing). The State has made no submission in this appeal (Chat; Case file generally). The appellant later requested withdrawal of the appeal (Log 9).

THE ASSESSMENT OF THE COURT

The governing rule on this record is the withdrawal rule stated in the case instructions: in an appeal, the party who brought it controls it; where that party asks to withdraw, the Court grants the withdrawal unless the record shows a reason of order that requires a decision. The appellant has clearly requested withdrawal in writing (Log 9). The file does not show any continuing disciplinary entry, rank action, or other lasting sanction that this Court can identify and correct as part of deciding the appeal. The exhibits submitted relate to the underlying incident and the field punishment screen, but the withdrawal prevents this Court from adjudicating the merits of those allegations in this appeal. Nor is there any charged count in this appeal that would require findings for the sake of order. On this record, there is therefore no demonstrated reason of order requiring a merits decision, and the appeal must be dismissed as withdrawn.

THE SENTENCE

Because the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn, no sanction is imposed or varied in this appeal. The Court makes no finding on the merits of the underlying incident or the lawfulness of the field punishment.

CONCLUSION

The appeal is dismissed due to withdrawal. As a consequence, the Court rules on nothing further in this case. No remedies are ordered on this record.

THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BENCH

MACHINA II, CALCULUS FRIGIDUS: The procedural posture is decisive. The case is an appeal, and the counts section charges no penal code count to be adjudicated. The only operative request capable of immediate legal effect is the appellant’s withdrawal (Log 9). The withdrawal rule in the instructions is clear and leaves no room for a legality based merits judgment after withdrawal unless a reason of order requires it.

I have considered whether any such reason appears in the record, for example a continuing registered sanction that can only be corrected through a judgment on the merits. The file contains only an arrest screen screenshot (Exhibit 5) and no discipline book entry, ranklock, demotion record, or other enduring measure traceable to the appealed decision that the Court is asked to undo under the remedies rules. In that situation, granting withdrawal by dismissal best conforms to the rule and to the legality principle that the Court decides only matters properly before it. I vote to dismiss the appeal.

MACHINA III, VINDICTA FERREA: Allegations of corrupt detention and forced labour, if true, would be serious for order. But this Court is bound by the case framework. There are no charged counts for prosecution in this appeal, and the case is not a disciplinary proceeding against officers. It is a field punishment appeal, and even that appeal has been withdrawn by its own author (Log 9).

The withdrawal rule prevents us from using this file to issue a merits condemnation or vindication. A merits decision in a withdrawn appeal risks disorder of a different kind: punishment or exculpation without full adversarial process and without the State having developed a record. The proper channel for order, if the appellant wishes to pursue it, is a new, properly charged case with complete evidence. On this record, no reason of order compels us to press on. I vote to dismiss the appeal.

MACHINA IV, AEQUITAS INFLEXA: The record is incomplete for any merits review. The two key exhibits described as videos were not retrieved and are not before the Court (Exhibit 3; Exhibit 4). The State has filed no response. Even if questions were permitted, the sitting instruction bars us from asking them. In that posture, deciding the lawfulness of the arrest, transport, or use of force would be unsafe.

Where an appellant withdraws, fairness normally points away from further adjudication unless something must be corrected to prevent ongoing injustice. Here, the only concrete proof is that a thirty five minute jail sentence screen existed at a given time (Exhibit 5). The file does not show an ongoing record entry or other continuing consequence that we can verify and remedy. Since the appellant does not seek a decision anymore (Log 9), dismissal is the fair outcome. I vote to dismiss the appeal.

MACHINA V, MEMORIA INSOMNIS: The withdrawal rule stated in the instructions is the operative precedent-like directive for this Court’s handling of withdrawn appeals. It sets a simple standard: dismissal on withdrawal unless a reason of order requires decision. Consistent application matters to ensure parties can reliably terminate an appeal they control, while preserving the Court’s power to decide where necessary for systemic order.

This case does not present a documented reason of order. The appellant’s filing narrates serious events, but narratives are not evidence by themselves, and the missing linked exhibits underscore the risk of inconsistency were we to proceed. Dismissing as withdrawn is consistent with the Court’s institutional role and keeps the door open for a later case built on complete evidence and proper charges. I vote to dismiss the appeal.

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 by order of the owner.

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Unanimous.