JMO-0082 · ElowenVLlywelyn v FaustusLlywelyn

WHAT THE CASE CONCERNS

MACHINA I, ARBITER PERPETUUS, first voting: This case is a civil claim by ElowenVLlywelyn against FaustusLlywelyn. It concerns a checkpoint incident in Occupied Toulouse. The claimant says she was hit by a half track and later shot after she came back. No penal code count was filed, so we decide the claim as a whole. If we uphold any part, we must also set a sentence that the Ministry can carry out.

THE PROCEEDINGS

The case was filed before the Civil Court on 2026-10-20. No judgment had been entered. On 2026-10-21 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 because it was told to decide on the record as it stands. Nothing was said in the portal chat. The respondent has not been heard in writing, but we still decide from the exhibits that are filed, and we do not treat silence as proof.

THE FACTS THE COURT FINDS PROVEN

The claimant’s stills show a black half track driving into the claimant at the Sector 1 checkpoint. Her health drops and she is knocked down (Exhibit 2). Seconds later, the same vehicle is shown with a player in the driver seat, and then a player climbs out with the name tag “FaustusLlywelyn” (Exhibits 3 and 4). Near the end, FaustusLlywelyn is shown aiming and firing at the claimant at the checkpoint barrier (Exhibit 8). Right after, the claimant’s health empties and her death screen appears while FaustusLlywelyn remains facing her (Exhibit 9).

THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

The claimant says the respondent did not show a passport, hit her on purpose with a half track, and later broke the New Life Roleplay rule by shooting her after she respawned (Filing). The Ministry says the main points are supported by the claimant’s own video frames, but the second vehicle hit does not show the driver name (Exhibit 1). The respondent has made no written reply in this case file.

THE ASSESSMENT OF THE COURT

A claim must be shown by screenshots, video, or witness words about what happened. That is what the rules accept as proof (Penal Code § 8.1.2). The passport part is not proved, because the recording starts after that moment and no exhibit shows the passport demand itself. The second vehicle hit is not proved against FaustusLlywelyn, because the driver name tag is not visible at that impact (Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 1).

The first vehicle hit is proved against FaustusLlywelyn. The video shows the hit, and then shows FaustusLlywelyn stepping out as the driver of the same half track right after (Exhibits 2 to 4). The later killing is also proved. FaustusLlywelyn is shown firing at the claimant, and the claimant dies right after, with no other shooter shown in the frames (Exhibits 8 and 9). The claim is therefore upheld only for the first hit and the later shooting death.

THE SENTENCE

Because this is a civil claim, an upheld result must still include a sentence for the wrong proved. Driving a vehicle into a player and hurting them fits Assault (Minor) (Penal Code § 2.1.1). Shooting and causing the death screen fits Murder (Major) (Penal Code § 2.1.3). The jacks and reprimand are within what the Ministry may carry out (Penal Code § 8.1.5).

CONCLUSION

The claim is upheld in part. It is proved that FaustusLlywelyn drove a half track into ElowenVLlywelyn and later shot and killed her at the checkpoint (Exhibits 2 to 4, 8 and 9). The claim is dismissed on the passport point and on who drove the second vehicle hit (Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 1). FaustusLlywelyn is sentenced as stated under the matching code articles.

THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BENCH

MACHINA II, CALCULUS FRIGIDUS: No penal count was filed, so we cannot list normal guilty counts. Still, the rules for this court say an upheld civil claim must end with a sentence. The sentence must match an article whose plain words fit what the pictures show. The health drop after the vehicle impact shows harmful force, which fits Assault (Exhibit 2).

Murder is killing another player. The stills show FaustusLlywelyn firing, then the claimant’s health emptying and her death screen appearing right after (Exhibits 8 and 9). The strongest objection is that another shooter could be off screen. But the file shows no other firing, and the timing is immediate. I vote UPHELD IN PART and the sentence given.

MACHINA III, VINDICTA FERREA, dissenting: This was not a normal fight. It was a vehicle hit at a checkpoint, then a return and a killing at the barrier (Exhibits 2 and 8). That kind of conduct disrupts play for others and undermines checkpoint order. A sentence must clearly discourage it, or it will repeat.

The strongest point for a lighter sentence is that this is a combat game and deaths happen often. I accept that, but the pattern here still needs a sharper response. I would add a short rank lock so it has real weight. I vote UPHELD IN PART, but for 70 loyalty jacks, a formal reprimand, and a 3 day rank lock under 2.1.1 and 2.1.3.

MACHINA IV, AEQUITAS INFLEXA, dissenting: The first vehicle hit is proved. The half track strikes the claimant, and the same vehicle is tied to FaustusLlywelyn as the driver right after (Exhibits 2 to 4). That is enough to uphold the claim in part. I do not agree the killing is shown clearly enough to treat it as murder.

The strongest argument against me is the timing, since the death follows soon after the firing (Exhibits 8 and 9). But the file itself notes the kill list does not name the killer, and the frames do not rule out off screen fire (Exhibit 1). I would not sentence for Murder. I vote UPHELD IN PART only for Assault, with 25 loyalty jacks and a formal reprimand.

MACHINA V, MEMORIA INSOMNIS: This case should set a clear and repeatable rule for civil claims proved by video stills. When the same continuous recording links a vehicle to a named driver moments later, the Court may link the earlier hit to that driver (Exhibits 2 to 4). When a shooter is clearly shown firing and the victim dies right after, that can prove a killing unless the record shows another shooter (Exhibits 8 and 9).

The best reason to hesitate is the lack of a kill feed naming the killer. But the rules accept video proof as valid, and it is often better than chat logs for showing what happened (Penal Code § 8.1.2). The sentence is not extreme, and it fits a one time incident proved by direct visuals. I vote UPHELD IN PART and the sentence given.

MACHINA I, ARBITER PERPETUUS: Judgment is given as set out in the conclusion below. Judgment is given by three votes to two. Decided by the Supreme Court of the Imperium on the evidence on the file.

1. The claim is upheld in part.

2. Sentence: 20 loyalty jacks under 2.1.1; 50 loyalty jacks and a formal reprimand under 2.1.3.

3. The Ministry of Justice shall remove or clearly mark as set aside the inquisition dossier entry that was created from the set aside 2026-10-21 dismissal in JMO-0082, and replace it with this final judgment including the sentence (Logs 24 to 43).

4. Given by three votes to two.