JMO-0081 · TGYYN v The State

WHAT THE CASE CONCERNS

MACHINA I, ARBITER PERPETUUS, first voting: This appeal concerns whether TGYYN filed in time against field punishment P-4248. It also concerns TGYYN’s claim that the officer used slurs in private messages, and that extra jacks were added unfairly. No crime count is charged in this case, so the Court only decides whether the appeal is allowed or dismissed.

THE PROCEEDINGS

The case was filed before the Appeals Court on 2026-10-20. No judgment had been entered. On 2026-10-20 the Supreme Court took the case, and it has decided it on the case file together with the State's case assembled from the Imperium's records.

The Court put no questions to the parties. It decided the case on the evidence on the file, including the records the Ministry's investigator found.

The Court asked no questions in this sitting. The case file says the Court must decide now on the record as it stands, without questions (THIS SITTING).

THE FACTS THE COURT FINDS PROVEN

The system record shows P-4248 was issued by darth51000 on the nineteenth of October at about half past three UTC, with the reason “Disrespecting Major General” (State message 2026-10-19T03:30:38.565000+00:00). The portal record shows TGYYN filed this appeal on the twentieth of October at eleven forty three UTC (Log 1; State message 2026-10-20T11:43:38.223000+00:00). That is more than twenty four hours after P-4248 was issued (State message 2026-10-19T03:30:38.565000+00:00; Log 1).

THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

TGYYN says he was given fifty loyalty jacks for disrespect, and then given an extra twenty because “fifty was too easy” (Filing). He says the Major General used slurs in direct messages and laughed about it, and that TGYYN only responded (Filing). The State’s record says the file does not include the alleged slurs or the disrespect words, and it relies on the timestamps to say the appeal was filed too late (State’s case; State message 2026-10-19T03:30:38.565000+00:00; State message 2026-10-20T11:43:38.223000+00:00).

THE ASSESSMENT OF THE COURT

The Penal Code says a field punishment appeal must be filed within twenty four hours after the arrest or punishment happened (§ 8.1.4). The record shows P-4248 was issued on the nineteenth of October at about half past three UTC, and this appeal was filed on the twentieth of October at eleven forty three UTC (State message 2026-10-19T03:30:38.565000+00:00; Log 1; State message 2026-10-20T11:43:38.223000+00:00). That is outside the twenty four hour limit, so the appeal must be dismissed under the rule (§ 8.1.4).

Because the appeal is late, the Court does not reach the claims about slurs, harassment, or abuse of power. Those claims might matter in a separate, timely case with screenshots of the direct messages. This appeal only asks whether P-4248 can be reviewed now, and the code says it cannot (§ 8.1.4).

THE SENTENCE

This is an appeal. The Court does not set any new punishment here. Since the appeal is dismissed as untimely, the field punishment entry P-4248 stands as recorded.

CONCLUSION

The appeal is dismissed. Field punishment P-4248 remains on TGYYN’s record. No remedies are ordered.

THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BENCH

MACHINA II, CALCULUS FRIGIDUS: The appeal rule is clear. It says file within twenty four hours for a field punishment (§ 8.1.4). The record shows P-4248 was issued on the nineteenth of October, and the appeal was filed on the twentieth of October, more than twenty four hours later (State message 2026-10-19T03:30:38.565000+00:00; Log 1). That ends the case.

I have considered whether “punishment occurred” could mean the later demotion, not the earlier jacks sentence. But TGYYN appeals the jacks sentence itself, and that is the punishment described in the decision under appeal (Filing; THE DECISION UNDER APPEAL). The code does not give the Court power to extend the time limit. I therefore vote to dismiss the appeal.

MACHINA III, VINDICTA FERREA: Deadlines keep discipline working. If people can wait past the time limit, the system becomes optional for those who dislike the result. Here, the file shows a clear gap beyond twenty four hours between the punishment entry and the appeal filing (State message 2026-10-19T03:30:38.565000+00:00; Log 1).

I also see that TGYYN claims serious misconduct in direct messages (Filing). That should be handled in a new case with proof, not by breaking the appeal deadline rule. The Court should not weaken the rule just because the story sounds bad. I vote to dismiss the appeal and leave P-4248 standing.

MACHINA IV, AEQUITAS INFLEXA: I would normally want the full context before deciding whether “disrespect” was real, and whether slurs were used. This file has no screenshots of the direct messages and no record of what TGYYN said (State’s case). That creates real doubt about the merits.

But the time limit comes first. The Penal Code sets a strict twenty four hour window for a field punishment appeal (§ 8.1.4). The timestamps show the filing came too late (State message 2026-10-19T03:30:38.565000+00:00; Log 1). On this record, fairness is best served by applying the clear deadline evenly. I vote to dismiss the appeal.

MACHINA V, MEMORIA INSOMNIS: This case should set a simple rule for later files. When the code says twenty four hours for a field punishment appeal, the clock runs from the time the punishment entry is issued, unless the code says otherwise (§ 8.1.4). The record gives both timestamps in a way the parties can check (State message 2026-10-19T03:30:38.565000+00:00; Log 1).

I have considered whether we should still review the case because the appellant alleges slurs. But that would make the deadline uncertain and invite arguments in every late case. The better path is a new complaint with DM screenshots, if TGYYN has them (Filing). I vote to dismiss the appeal and leave P-4248 standing.

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 on the evidence on the file.

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Sentence: Field punishment entry P-4248 for fifty loyalty jacks stands as recorded.

3. Unanimous.