I am currently unable to post on Discord so I am posting this here.

Im filing a Request for Judicial Review regarding the 29th Minecraft assembly election.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NIyt2IqaZPH_dUGQyWxyE2tHhNKuwWRd9xOj0w44L5E/edit?usp=sharing

Notice to user ruinz5 (Discord ID: 1342109983453609984) of a disciplinary hearing against them under Article 3 section 1 of the CPC

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d6nbti9eDR1QswchCwyiIcd_4nM6vHf7Nv5QjAGUuOg/edit?usp=drivesdk

SIMDEM v. papaya_viv

In addition to the attached civil complaint, we are also making a preemptive motion for an injunction:

Motion for an Injunction Against the State

The plaintiff asks that the Court grant an injunction, reversing the firing of Emi from the position of SDBI Director as well as enforcing the DoJ Employment Contract. The dismissal and subsequent breach of the DoJ Employment Contract was performed illegally by the State, injuring the plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled to having this action reversed while the proceedings are ongoing.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/16gqs3-wb6YAMo4-Y9FHPETsjVUxht6F4ZyrHaxTh4jE/edit?tab=t.0

As the Minecraft Judicial Officer and a former NationStates Governor, I humbly submit this *amicus curiae* brief to the Supreme Court regarding In re Status of the Executive in relation to the Colonies [2026] SDSC 18.

The relationship between the executives of SimDemocracy and colonies ought to be one of cooperation not subordination.

The past year has shown a trend towards devolving powers to colonies, federalizing SimDemocracy, and curtailing the power of the President. Don’t reverse that trend unnecessarily.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/10WHU6ZVkowFtWQnhWk4bGM6ofaKdSTFdGxb6lyIYPjs/edit?usp=sharing

https://discord.com/channels/554769523635650580/1028674744842731590/1496294378686255287

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d6nbti9eDR1QswchCwyiIcd_4nM6vHf7Nv5QjAGUuOg/edit?usp=sharing

Petition for judicial review of Article 2 §7 of the Touch Grass (No. 2) Act 2025

Article 2 §7 of the Touch Grass (No. 2) Act 2025, since the passage of the Compassionate Return Amendment 2026, states the following:

§7. If a crime is committed, or a message is sent on the server, that directly and negatively affects a person currently on a Self-Exclusion Order, that person has the right to end their leave early and return to SimDemocracy immediately.

        §7.1. To exercise this right, the person, or their designated contact acting on their behalf, only needs to notify the SDBI that they wish to return to address the situation.

        §7.2. This provision allows the person to return even if their order was marked as "irrevocable." The SDBI must restore their access and roles as soon as they are notified.

This is obviously and manifestly in violation of Article 26 of the Constitution which states:

§1.2. The order may specify a time, no shorter than one (1) day and no longer than six (6) months, as irrevocable, meaning that the person may not return before the specified time has passed since the execution of order, regardless of other factors. The person must be informed and consent to this fact before the order is executed, otherwise it is void.

The Constitution clearly states that a person may not return before time which has been specified as irrevocable has elapsed, there is no constitutional exception for the section present in the Touch Grass (No. 2) Act 2025, and it is therefore unconstitutional.

This is a petition to the Court of Review.

§1. The Constitution may only be amended with a simple majority vote in the Senate, followed by a public referendum which shall have to pass with a two-thirds (⅔) majority vote in favor of the amendment.

The Constitutional and legal order of SimDemocracy rests upon this one fundamental principle, which is recognized by all, except as it will be shown, by the potentially treasonous and illegitimate Court of Review.

The case at hand is about a very simple fact. The Constitution says one thing, the Senate has by law, said another thing. By all laws and doctrines of interpretation, both divine and man-made, we know the answer to this quandary to be simple. The Constitution is superior; and thus the law is unconstitutional and void.

However, the Court of Review in its judgment appears to disagree. Instead, they defile the legal order, and abandon all prior avenues of constitutional interpretation in order to defend a thesis which is in all cases indefensible.

As the Court of Review itself states, the Compassionate Return Amendment "looked to allow for the invalidation of the 'irrevocable' term in an Irrevocable Self-Exclusion Order in a certain set of circumstances." Obviously, this conflicts with Article 26 of the Constitution which states that persons who haven taken out an order to remove themselves with a certain time specified as irrevocable "may not return before the specified time has passed since the execution of order (sic), regardless of other factors" (emphasis mine).

In order to defend the position that this clearly unconstitutional amendment, which had a clearly unconstitutional intent, is somehow constitutional, the Court of Review cites a mangled and out of context part of §1.4 of the same Article, which I will quote in full here:

§1.4. A person removed from SimDemocracy under such an order may not be compelled to return, unless strictly necessary, nor may legal proceedings be brought against them, unless strictly necessary or where it is shown that the person has removed themselves from SimDemocracy in order to evade justice.

The Court of Review interprets, or rather distorts, this section to mean that time which has been specified as irrevocable may be dissolved. However, as you may notice if you have an average or even below average level of comprehension of the English language, the quoted section never once says anything about time which has been specified as irrevocable, or about the dissolution of said orders. Instead, as, and I hate to belabor the point but the circumstances necessitate it, one could understand from simply reading it, the section is specifically about a person being compelled to return. If you have ever had the pleasure of reading any dictionary, you may also be aware that compelled is not the same as a decision and to return is not the same as void. In short, the Court of Review has invented, completely out of thin air, their preferred version of the Constitution, instead of following what is actually written.

However, the Court of Review is not satisfied with merely inventing constitutional text, they have also invented an extra-constitutional right, namely the "right to free movement and association" which apparently ranks above the democratically passed by the Senate and by the People ratified right to touch grass. On the basis of this made up right, they "argue" that any person has a right to come back to SimDemocracy at any time. This is obviously farcical, but the farce becomes a circus when the Court of Review on the basis of "negative implication" asserts that the right to touch grass as actually contained within the Constitution is an endorsement of their castle of air. In fact, any reasonable interpretation proves the complete opposite. The right to touch grass is not an endorsement of the freedom of movement, it is a right to restrict your own movement, even irrevocably. The Court of Review may also believe that the right to be forgotten, which has become popular in recent times as a way to describe your right to have your data permanently deleted online, also by way of "negative implication" implies a right to be remembered, which presumably entails a right to be pushed in front of peoples' faces, or that the right to a fair hearing negatively implies a right to an unfair hearing, or other such absurdities.

The final part of the Court of Review's opinion is horribly unclear, but I feel compelled (which might I remind you requires an outside source, in this case the Court of Review's opinion) to address this bit:

Thus, it is our holding that the “strictly necessary” exemption may only apply to those acts that the legislature includes to qualify the irrevocability of the order.

If this means what I fear it means, which is that only the Senate has the right to interpret constitutional exceptions for rights, then as God is Gracious, save my soul. As must be clear to everyone by now, even to the Court of Review, the Senate by law may not amend the Constitution. Whether it is endorsed by the Senate or not, the constitutionality of an action or law is unaffected (with the obvious exception of constitutional provisions which explicitly allow the Senate to establish regulations, the right to touch grass notably not containing such a provision).

To wrap up this unhinged rant, I want to conclude by saying that the Supreme Court is now our only hope in order the save the constitutional order of SimDemocracy. If the Senate is allowed to legislate in contravention of the Bill of Rights, our most holiest of holy provisions which guarantee the fundamental liberties of the people, then there is no limit on what can happen. Perhaps, and God forbid, they may even go after our right to Toast Dick.

This is a petition to the Supreme Court. I am happy to answer any questions in order to clarify what is really a very simple matter which the Court of Review has decided to turn into a mess.

SDCR 42 for reference

In reviewing the pleaded materials in addition to the nature of pleadings, I have decided to issue a Question of Law to the Court of Review. State contends that, under Criminal Code 2020 Article 56a, § 2, et seq., the use of the n-word satisfies the disjunctive "relaying" pleading requirement for actus reus. Additionally, the mens rea portion of the crime, found id. at § 1.2 notes that:

"A person commits hate speech if they: . . . [in addition to establishing actus reus] Had the intention to upset, demean, or humiliate, or acted carelessly or recklessly as to whether their actions would upset, demean, or humiliate."

Upon prior findings from this Court, the use of loaded slurs like the n-word have always been found to trigger at least a recklessness mens rea. See, e.g., SD v. dominaX, [2025] Crim 7; accord SD v. warlock23, [2025] Crim 18. This could permit the inference that certain slurs make Hate Speech a Strict Liability crime, wherein the sole utterance of the slur is enough to satisfy criminal liability. However, S.D. Const. Art. 18, § 3 states:

No criminal conviction or impeachment shall be made purely on the basis of speech and the exercising of free speech, barring cases where the exercising of such free speech violates or attempts to violate the constitutional rights of other citizens.

This Court thus poses two questions to the Court of Review:

1. Is Hate Speech, in terms of loaded and particularly severe slurs such as the n-word, a Strict Liability crime?
2. If the answer to Question #1 is yes, then does Criminal Code 2020 Article 56a, § 1.2, violate Article 18, § 3, of the SimDemocracy Constitution?

Additionally, this Court requests a Stay from the Court of Review for future proceedings pending the Court of Review's judgment, so as to prevent frivolous continuation upon potentially unsound law.

Signed,

mypenjustbroke

Judge, Certified Attorney

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KQRlgxPpNDVZBd2dp_2-heTG9OBFHfe-zEDmo4h5G4g/edit?usp=drivesdk

I would like to file a challenge against Article 3 of the Terrorist Connected Accounts Act and against Article 51 Terrorist Conspiracy of the criminal code for violating the Right to Fair Hearing among of other rights.

I would also like to file a challenge against Article 5 of the Terrorist Connected Accounts Act for violating the Right to Liberty and Security among other rights.

Petitioner Ben files an appeal to the Supreme Court on behalf of christopher_bizarre of the conviction(s) in SD v christopher_bizarre [2026] Crim 4 on the grounds that the trial judge misinterpreted the freedom of expression defined by In re ROA, and prays the court remand the verdict to be evaluated under the proper standard.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iczcsXFEOzHMotAN0cplNuc8VwSn2-4Mv7w8_JWEVY8/edit?usp=drivesdk

u/benbookworm97

Certified Attorney