United Nations Court Cases

The United Nations is suing New Belize for 12 violations of international water regulations, 11 of which are located in Lulu Bay and one in the southern section of Sand Dune Slums.

Article V of the United Nations Charter outlines the legality of building in international waters:

< "To be able to build into maritime territory, a nation must exert exclusive influence or own the territory surrounding the land around the body of water. In the cases of rivers, this is owning both banks of a river. If a nation does not meet these requirements, the maximum they may build into maritime territory is three blocks from the shore that they own and must be above the waterline. The construction of man-made islands is prohibited. All existing man-made islands created before 10/9/2019 are lawful and permitted to continue to exist. However, no new one may be created lawfully and is to be considered an act of war against the United Nations."

Article II and III of Amendment II to the United Nations Charter states:

"A nation owning all shores of a body of water owns the body of water, but may not build more than 15 blocks from a shore without the permission of the United Nations Assembly or the United Nations Department of the Interior. If the body of water leads to other bodies of water, it is unlawful to fill it to the point that no boat may traverse it."

and that

"A country may also petition the United Nations to build a harbor on their coastline beyond the block limit in a multinational body of water. This is to be permitted with a majority vote in the Assembly and oversight from the Department of Transportation. If a country establishes territory on the shoreline of an ocean, the legal limit to the distance that a country can build from the shore extends to seven blocks."

New Belize has constructed eleven lily pads in Lulu Bay, labeled 1-11 in Evidence A below, all of which are illegal. Since New Belize does not control territory or influence over all the shores of Lulu Bay, they are only permitted to build within three blocks from the shore. Additionally, these structures are considered man-made islands, which, according to Article V of the United Nations Charter, constitutes an act of war against the United Nations. Furthermore, there is a bridge that extends more than 15 blocks from either shore. There are also numerous smaller violations in Lulu Bay, including small lanterns and floating blocks built above international waters. The bridge in Sand Dune Slums similarly violates these laws.

All of these violations could have been avoided if New Belize had simply requested permits from the United Nations, as they did when creating their big cave hole near New Belize Mainland.

Instead of demanding the destruction of these illegal structures, the United Nations recommends a penalty of 7 diamonds for each violation and feels that that is a just punishment.

New Belize would like to enter into a guilty plea on all twelve counts of violating international waters. However, the proposed 84-diamond fine is not justified for a first-time offender. In Case 19: United Nations v. Confederate Provinces of East Old Man Reid, the fine levied for a repeat offender was 25 diamonds. YerLoss was unaware of the law's existence and therefore could not regulate his citizens' actions.

The defense proposes the court accept New Belize's guilty plea in exchange for the following sentence:
- A reduced 48-diamond fine (4 per violation)
- The United Nations allowing the Lulu Bay illegal structures to remain
- A probationary period of six months in which New Belize's maritime construction shall be monitored by the Department of Corrections

In Case 19: United Nations v. Confederate Provinces of East Old Man Reid, East Old Man Reid received a fine of only 25 diamonds because the expansion into international waters was limited to one location, not 12 major violations. Yerloss of New Belize is also very aware of international water laws, as he has legally expanded into international waters before, following New Belize's Petition to Drain a Portion of Water Waterway as well as his failed Petition to Build Over Some of the Waterway Near New Belize. While LuluLikeThat may not have been entirely aware, it is the responsibility of New Belize's leader, Yerloss, to educate his citizens on the laws of the land.

The United Nations is recommending for a minimum fine of 7 diamonds and a maximum of 10 diamonds per major violation. The United Nations considers this fair, as we are also overlooking the many smaller violations in Lulu Bay. You can see the numerous smaller violations in Evidence C and D.

There are numerous problematic statements with the plaintiff's argument. Before the guilty plea, the plaintiff introduced twelve violations of International Waters statutes. The defense pled guilty to all counts, proposing a plea bargain on account of the defendant being a first-time offender with a history of following the law. However, the plaintiff proceeded to introduce new facts to the case after a guilty plea was reached. By this point, the judges should have either entered into deliberation for sentencing or heard arguments from the plaintiff and defense solely related to sentencing.

However, the plaintiff issued a new argument, first highlighting my client's past compliance with the law, something remarkable for him not actually knowing the law existed. This argument would then feature new facts to the case contradicting Evidence Exhibits A and B. Exhibits A and B revealed 12 violations while these new photos, Evidence Exhibits C and D, reveal 20 single-block floating objects over the general Lulu Bay area. Of these 20 objects, the photos admitted to evidence cannot definitively show whether all 20 of these objects are violations to international waters. However, the defense is not going to argue the legality of these alleged violations because the defense was not given an opportunity to address these additional charges before the plea was entered, which is procedurally improper and undermines the fairness of the trial.

The last problem in the plaintiff's argument is the inconsistency in the requested fine amount. The plaintiff's original request to the United Nations was steep. 84 diamonds is high for a first-time offender. At 7 diamonds per offense, that is significant. Case 19 showed four violations, not one as erroneously stated by the plaintiff, of international waters committed by East Old Man Reid, who was convicted and sentenced to a fine of 25 diamonds. That is 7.5 diamonds per offense for a repeat offender. Extending a fine of 7 diamonds per offense for a first-time offender with a proven history of following the law is unprecedented and dangerous, especially considering the defendant has shown good faith in pleading guilty to all 12 counts of international waters violations introduced against him. In summary, the defense seeks a fair and just outcome that reflects the cooperative spirit of the defendant and respects the integrity of the judicial process.

With this concluding my argument, I wish to first motion to dismiss this trial on the grounds that the plaintiff is attempting to introduce additional charges to this trial. A plea was already issued, meaning those charges would need to be decided by a separate trial. Allowing the introduction of new facts to a case where a verdict has already been reached opens the door for a dangerous precedent to take place.

If that motion is denied, I motion to enter sentencing as the facts of the case were laid out before the plea was issued. If the judges enter sentencing, my recommendation for sentencing stands. As a reminder, this was my recommendation: a 48-diamond fine with a six-month probationary period for New Belizean maritime construction and a United Nations guarantee that all Lulu Bay violations are left standing.

Objection: A leader cannot petition for permits to build into international waters without knowing of the law banning building into international waters. Also the UN decided to add the many other smaller violations to this law suit rather than sue New Belize a second time, causing a larger total fine.

On behalf of the Confederate Provinces of East Old Man Reid (EOMR), I am suing Cowman7 of Nelsonia for failure to pay war crime debts owed to EOMR. Ordinarily, these debts do not come with a due date and are paid "as the debtor is able to". However, Cowman7 is blatantly spitting on the sovereignty and dignity of EOMR by neglecting and refusing to pay his war crime debts.

Furthermore, I am suing Cowman7 on behalf of EOMR for failure to contribute time or resources to the rebuilding effort of Jesus' Compound in Reid Plains.

With a war crime sentencing on April 20, 2023 for illegal use of TNT, engaging in acts of war without a declaration, and excessive damage to property, Cowman7 was tried and convicted with due process. His conviction was a sentence to pay 26 diamonds to EOMR, to pay 14 diamonds to the United Nations, and to contribute time and resources to the rebuilding effort of Jesus' Compound in Reid Plains, in addition to being temporarily banned from the United Nations Assembly. Cowman7, on December 11, paid his debt to the United Nations in the presence of Axeman_76 and myself. When asked about whether he would pay EOMR, he outright refused, first expressing verbal sentiments of refusal to pay to Axeman_76 and myself. Later, he doubled down, expressing written sentiments of refusal to pay, as seen in Exhibit A.

Lastly, the United Nations December Audit and OMR Report revealed that Nelsonia has 987 diamonds in liquid cash, significantly more than enough to pay Cowman7's war crime debt to EOMR.

It is a novelty in the United Nations to have such a refusal to pay, especially when the country/individual has the means to pay. As the law stands now, there is no penalty for refusal to pay a debt or for failure to act on "community service" sentences, as Cowman7 received. For this reason, I request that the court rule that there be a penalty for refusal to and/or for failure to comply with debts and obligatory community service on all future court rulings. Furthermore, I request that Cowman7 be fined a further 30.64532431 diamonds, the amount shown by the compound interest formula in Exhibit B (240 days of continuously compounding interest at 25% from the day of the sentencing to today) and that Nelsonia be again barred from the United Nations Assembly for blatant lack of respect of other nation's sovereignty.

On the topic of my "refusal" to pay, I am sorry to say: I gotta get my money up. While I do have a small amount of liquid asset available, it is not enough for me to pay back the exorbitant sum that both the UN and EORM have requested. I have been so focused on getting my money up that I haven't even been able to contribute to EOMR's reconstruction. In the end: I gotta get my money up

Confederacy of East Old Man Reid v. Cowman7 is a War Crime Tribunal, different from most cases seen by the United Nations.

The charges against TheCowman_7 are:
- Engaging in acts of war without a declaration
- Illegal use of TNT
- Excessive damage to property

The defendant pleads innocent to all charges.

The [below] video is Exhibit A of evidence, in which explosions can be heard and TNT use can be seen. Defendant is seen close to the explosions and was either the one to ignite TNT or provide the tools to ignite TNT to pretzel_captcha. This is the events of the night in question:

First, pretzel_captcha begins attempted unlawful demolition of East Old Man Reid buildings. East Old Man Reid law enforcement hinders those efforts, leading to an ultimate stalemate.

A coalition of Nelsonia and Nation of Isaac forces intervene against East Old Man Reid law enforcement, doing significant enough damage to EOMR law enforcement to force a retreat. The Nation of Isaac attempts to conduct moderate mediation and offers expedition to the Nation of Isaac, something that pretzel_captcha accepts at the 0:11 mark of the video.

East Old Man Reid Minister of Intelligence Triton1037 is brought in to attempt to mediate the situation, which can be heard at the 0:12 mark of the video.

Explosions are first heard at the 0:17 mark of the video, and this screenshot (herein Exhibit B of evidence) taken from the 0:20 mark of the video shows Defendant with a flint and steel next to one unlit TNT and very close to a TNT that has been ignited. Three explosions take place between that mark and 0:28.

At Exhibit A's 0:37, Axeman_76 can be heard saying that pretzel_captcha must have had a secret stash of TNT but that is irrelevant. The video attached to this message, Exhibit C, shows at and around the 0:42 mark Axeman_76 accusing OldManReidGaming of stealing pretzel_captcha’s TNT and pretzel_captcha saying he doesn't "have any fucking TNT." Additionally, Exhibit B shows Defendant with the tools to ignite TNT and TNT placed. That constitutes illegal use of TNT by Defendant Cowman7.

At and/or around Exhibit A's 0:48 mark, Axeman_76 says he "didn't see Cowman7 do anything", which means one of two things. The first is that Axeman_76 was not paying attention to the blatant misuse of TNT by Defendant. The second is that Axeman_76 is deliberately trying to cover up Defendant's actions. Regardless, there is strong video and photographic evidence to show that Defendant engaged in illegal use of TNT.

The use of TNT is an act of war and can result in significant damage to property. In this instance, no war was declared by Nelsonia, so this is a violation to resolution Diplomatic Procedures: Declarations of War, Declarations of Hostility, Embargoes, Treaties, and Alliances Article II.

East Old Man Reid Minister of Intelligence Triton1037 took images of the crime scene, shown in exhibits D, E, F, G, H, and I. Some damage to property is what pretzel_captcha attempted to do but he was limited to a pickaxe as he didn't "have any fucking TNT." There are distinct craters left by TNT and there is additional evidence of crops taken. Exhibit A also shows the TNT damaging and possibly killing the trader llama tied up. The property was valued by the last United Nations Valuation Committee estimate at 26 diamonds. This valuation was done before many of the improvements to the property and so the pre-TNT valuation would likely be closer to 75 diamonds based on the Dashie Arcology as a comparable building (it is a similarly-styled building located very close by and has a value of 87 diamonds and 8 gold ingots at last valuation).

No argument provided.

As Judge, I vote that Defendant is guilty on all counts. As a result, I rule that Defendant shall be required to contribute time and resources to rebuilding efforts at the direction of the victim state. Additionally, Defendant shall yield 26 diamonds (the UN Valuation Committee's property assessment as of January 2023) in reparations to East Old Man Reid and an additional 14 diamonds in fines to the United Nations. Lastly, Nelsonia shall be barred from voting in the United Nations Assembly until May 15, 2023 at 11:59 PM.

For additional context, the time and resources to rebuilding efforts and 26-diamond payment are punishment for excessive damage to property, the 14-diamond fine is punishment for the undeclared war, and the temporary ban on voting in the Assembly is punishment for illegal use of TNT.

I believe that ungle Nelson should be required to pay the fines Reid has listed and shall also have to rebuild damages he caused, however I do not believe he should be barred from voting in the UN for the next 2 weeks.

The United Nations is suing Axeman_76 for going outside of his powers to initiate a lawsuit against OldManReidGaming. Ambassador Axeman_76 initiated a court case, breaking precedent. Cases in which the United Nations is the suing party always were initiated by a vote of the United Nations Assembly or by the Speaker. I will remind the court that there was controversy about the Speaker's ability to create a case without the consent of the Assembly, which is much less problematic than a single Ambassador bypassing the Assembly and Speaker.

The lawsuit was announced by Axeman_76 at 12:57 pm. Exhibit A shows Speaker YerLoss giving Axeman_76 authority to be the attorney should the UN begin a case. That does not mean that the Ambassador had the right to initiate the lawsuit. The Speaker had to begin the lawsuit, which took until 1:01 pm for any sort of Speaker announcement, which was only an appointment. At no time did the Speaker actually say that the United Nations is to initiate a lawsuit. Only Ambassador Axeman_76 said that the United Nations is to initiate a lawsuit.

There are several rulings that should come out of this case.

For the reasons listed above, the United Nations is requesting that the decision in United Nations v. OldManReidGaming (03/29/2023) (herein UN v. OMRG) be amended to have no punishment as the lawsuit had incorrect procedure. The United Nations legal team requests that the judges rule that, as done with precedent, the Speaker or Assembly must authorize court cases.

The decision of United Nations v. OldManReidGaming (03/29/2023) also introduced a precedent that United Nations officials can be sued for abuse of power even if they are not impeached for that same reason. Article III of the United Nations Charter and resolution Sergeant at Arms establish that the Sergeant at Arms, the position in question in UN v. OMRG, shall be a position "held in good behavior". This means violations should call on the Assembly to vote on impeachment. For that reason, the United Nations is not suggesting punitive action against Axeman_76 in this case and requests that the court withdraw the decision in UN v. OMRG.

The court also should be reminded that there is a history of court cases in which an individual believes United Nations' or United Nations officials' actions, the individual sued the United Nations. For this reason, UN v. OMRG should have really been Axeman_76 v. United Nations, in which Axeman_76 sued the United Nations for not impeaching OldManReidGaming. The United Nations should amend the decision of UN v. OMRG for that reason as well.

Overall, there should be no punitive action against Axeman_76, but there should be revisions to UN v. OMRG such that proper procedure is followed in the future.

As you showed in Exhibit A, YerLoss gave me authority to be the attorney, thus implying he agrees with beginning a court case on behalf of the UN. I would also like to mention that the ruling in UN v. OMRG was that YerLoss was wrongly given the position of Speaker. As per the ruling, YerLoss does not have the right to start a court case because at the time of the start of this court case, he was an observational delegate.

I think that it is interesting that more than half of your argument is suggestions to the judge on how best to repeal all punishments for OldManReidGaming. I believe that the precedent created in UN v. OMRG is good. That the members of the United Nations should have the ability to punish people in positions of power, rather than just making them step down.

I would also like to reiterate from the last court case, I intended to sue OldManReidGaming for abuse of power, not the United Nations as a whole.

Defendant's first argument is a logical fallacy. First, Defendant argued that Speaker YerLoss had the authority to begin a court case and appoint an attorney. Then, he argued that YerLoss' Speaker position was invalid at the time of the court case. If the Speaker didn't have the authority, then the Assembly is the only other viable route to begin a court case. Individual Ambassadors have never held the power to solely begin a court case on the behalf of the United Nations. If UN v. OMRG ruled that YerLoss was wrongly given the position of Speaker, then Defendant had no more right than YerLoss to begin a court case.

The prior argument identifies all of the reasons why UN v. OMRG broke several established precedents and created precedents in direct violation to the United Nations Charter, the highest law of the land. Such flawed judicial procedure is going to lead to very flawed judgment debt. I will remind the court that the Plaintiff is not seeking damages against the Defendant but is trying to enforce existing statutes that went unenforced. However, if the court rules that UN v. OMRG should stand, then it would only make sense that the court seeks damages against the Defendant for going outside of his power as an Ambassador, as the Defendant's logical fallacy clearly states.

I vote in favor of Axeman and believe Reid should pay his fine.

I withdraw my vote because I voted while intoxicated and medically incapable.

I agree with OldManReidGaming that the precedent should be to sue the UN as a whole or the office of the offender eg. Sergeant at Arms, Department of Transportation [You are able to sue a part of the government IRL] for negligence / misuse of power. Although the press for the court case may be sleazy, it does look to be a perfectly legal way to go about the creation of a court case, the wording of YerLoss' message is clear in that the case was created with their permission. Even if YerLoss was deceived by Axeman_76 to authorize the court case, it falls on the involved parties to carefully think of the consequences of starting a court case. In addition, there is a precedent for creating court cases on behalf of other parties in the case that the parties involved may not know how to proceed with the case. The result of this case should not change the outcome of United Nations v. Old Man Reid. In the case of Axeman_76's point on the validity of this case, he could in fact be correct in that the result of the previously mentioned case, however the court did not rule that YerLoss would be taken out of power, only that OldManReidGaming would be fined 25 Diamonds for his incorrect calling of the speaker.

My ruling is thus: A precedent needs to be set that in such cases of complete negligence or abuse of power, a person can and should be able to bring a court case to the United Nations. I rule that OldManReidGaming should still be fined 25 diamonds but also remind Axeman_76 and any others starting court cases to check in clear writing whether they have the authority to create such cases.

I think that both the defendant and plaintiff failed to clarify whether YerLoss was still speaker or not. Also both parties appear to have misread very important parts of each other's arguments. In the future please thoroughly read through both arguments such that the job of the judges can better understand your own argument.

I also agree with my fellow judge and OldManReidGaming on the precedent regarding the permission to sue the UN or an office of the elected body individually. The ruling in the original court case of UN v. OMRG must still be maintained in order to prevent the circumvention of electoral and democratic procedure moving forward. I recognize the opaqueness of YerLoss' position and jurisdiction within the context of this case specifically, as this lack of clarity is what led Axeman_76 to take the actions as seen in Exhibit A.

Through deliberation, I rule that OldManReidGaming must still pay the original fine of 25 diamonds from his previous conviction. We cannot allow any individual within the UN to subvert the natural democratic proceedings of any speaker election, regardless of their position. I will remind all parties that such proceedings for court cases must be established under clear and legal ground. With the lack of clarity in YerLoss ' role within the UN at the time, further checks and discussions should have been made and held to assure proper procedure.

On March 29th, after a tie in the speaker election, OldManReidGaming announced that Yer, the observer state delegate of Belize, became speaker. As Sergeant at Arms, OldManReidGaming is in charge of announcing the status of resolutions. Rather than following the United Nations Charter and the laws created around it, OldManReidGaming took the election results into his own hand, giving the speaker position to Yer, rather than Cowman7 of Nelsonia, the rightful winner.

In his announcement, OldManReidGaming cited the resolution Structure in the Happening of an Impractical Tie (SHIT), which states:

“In the event of a tie during the speaker elections, the speaker position is given to the smallest county in the world who has been actively participating in the server in the last three months.”

While this is true that Belize is the smallest country, resolutions may not override or conflict with the United Nations Charter.

Article III of the Charter states that:

“The executive powers lie in the office of the Speaker of the United Nations. The Speaker must be an Ambassador in the Assembly, and must be elected with the highest proportion of votes.”

As we can see, the speaker has to be an ambassador. Unfortunately for Yer, he is an observer state, and thus a delegate, not an ambassador.

Article I of the resolution Voting Member and Observer Fees states that:

“Observer State representatives in the United Nations shall now be referred to as Delegates, so as to differentiate them from Voting Member State representatives, which have been and shall continue being referred to as Ambassadors.”

There is a distinction between ambassadors and delegates. I'd like to also mention that nowhere in the charter or amendments or resolutions does it mention that an observer is an ambassador of any kind. It only refers to them as observer, observer state, or delegate. As delegates are not ambassadors, then they cannot hold the position of speaker as per the United Nations Charter.

To further confirm that observer states are not considered ambassadors, in article II of the charter:

“The legislative powers of the United Nations are to be held in a unicameral legislature. This chamber holds the power to pass legislation and is to be the United Nations Assembly. Each voting member state has one ambassador, all of whom have an equal vote.”

An observer state is not a voting member, and thus does not have an ambassador.

And finally, in article I of the charter:

“Unless specifically stated by a United Nations statute, non-voting observer states will not be eligible for benefits of United Nations statutes.”

The ability to hold any position of power is a benefit of the United Nations statutes. The position of speaker is one of the most powerful positions that a person can hold in the United Nations and is clearly a breach of the United Nations Charter for a non-voting observer state to hold.

I am putting a motion to dismiss this lawsuit.

Article III of the United Nations Charter states:

“The Sergeant at Arms, which is a position held in good behavior for an indefinite period with a primary focus of announcing the status and results of motions on the floor inaugurally held by the ambassador of East Old Man Reid.”

Resolution Sergeant at Arms, passed on October 31, 2019 and upheld under Article VII of the United Nations Charter, states:

“OldManReidGaming, being the prior de facto Sergeant at Arms, shall now have the position of Sergeant at Arms, a position that is to announce the status of United Nations motions. As the precedent has set OldManReidGaming as de facto Sergeant at Arms, and ambassadors are more frequently breaking the precedent to announce the status of resolutions when convenient for them, it is necessary to have a single person announce the status.”

Plaintiff is accusing me of abusing my power as the Sergeant at Arms. The statutes state this is a position held indefinitely in good behavior. Plaintiff is an Ambassador with voting power in the United Nations Assembly. This means he should motion for impeachment rather than tell the United Nations to sue the Sergeant at Arms. The precedent is that the Ambassador proposes an impeachment vote and then either the Assembly passes a vote to rectify the wrong through statutory law or the Ambassador sues the United Nations to rectify the wrong through case law.

I motion to dismiss the lawsuit against OldManReidGaming.

The Confederate Provinces of East Old Man Reid. v. YerLoss is a War Crime Tribunal, different from most cases seen by the United Nations.

The charges against the defendant are:
- Excessive stealing by taking 15 diamond helmets, 16 diamond chest plates, 12 diamond leggings, and - 16 diamond boots from the Reid's Armor Stand Building
- Excessive damage to the East Old Man Reid Capitol Building
- Excessive damage to 2nd Bank of OMR Field
- Excessive damage to the Reid Vegas Casino
- Excessive damage to the Reid Vegas OMR Sign
- Excessive damage to the East OMR Water "Treatment" Facility
- Excessive damage to the New Reid City Bees
- Illegal use of TNT on the Nation of Isaac Embassy
- Illegal use of TNT on the New Reid City Bees

The defendant pleads innocent to all charges.

948 diamonds, 7 gold, 1 redstone is the total value of the buildings damaged and items stolen.

The Great War was fought between the following combatants: on one side, the citizens of East Old Man Reid and the Grand Isle of Knoo. On the other, the citizens of the Nation of Isaac and defectors to the Nation of Isaac from the then-East Old Man Reid territory of Belize. The defendant in this case has been shown to agree to a proclamation by the Nation of Isaac that stated that he is now a citizen of the Nation of Isaac. All of his actions during the war were completed as a citizen flying the Nation of Isaac flag; therefore, any acts of war committed by the defendant cannot be considered acts of domestic terrorism. Exhibits A and B proves the defendant consents to renouncing his East Old Man Reid citizenship and accepts the Nation of Isaac's invitation to join. There is no United Nations statute or court case defining citizenship or the laws pertaining to citizenship. The only historic precedent for an exchange of citizenship came from the rebellion of the Cloak and Dagger Society, in which they rebelled, established control of land, and signed a treaty with the now-defunct Old Man Reid's Country. In joining the Nation of Isaac, YerLoss did not incite a rebellion but was an unprecedented defector. President OldManReidGaming of East Old Man Reid even was willing to allow YerLoss to defect, as shown in Exhibit C, on the condition that no territory was exchanged to the Nation of Isaac, which is why the war began.

Neutral Judges and observers of the court, as you may have seen or deduced, my image of a trustworthy and loyal citizen, has been defamed by the accusations of the prosecution, OldManReidGaming. While I may or may not be guilty of some of the charges listed, I would like to clarify that the narrative and court that they are filed under, is against the nature of the term “war crimes”. To fully understand the entire narrative, it should be known that prior to the alleged consent of switching to any nations, Reid had been planning to strip the title of Governor of Belize from Yer, a land which he had no hand in developing nor within his borders at the time of construction, solely for the purpose of committing fraud against the cartography commission. (See exhibit D for evidence)

Unfortunately, due to the fear of having my hard work removed because of the tyrannical leader, I had been forced to seek aid from an outsider nation, to obtain the liberation of my work. Admittedly, as seen from the resulting conflict, it had been a bad but good intended idea. Although to my credit, at the time, conversations with Reid had indicated that he would’ve been happy from me benefiting from a wealthy nation, such as the Nation of Isaac.

Like any Reid-fearing and loyal believer, I had taken his words to heart, and I can only plead guilty to being a gullible follower that could not see the malice behind his advice. (See exhibit E for evidence)

Given the circumstantial evidence that I have gathered with me, I would like to call for these charges to be either filed under domestic terrorism, Reid to also be charged for war crimes, or for the cases to be seen under a better and informed light.

The defense is trying to cite YerLoss v. East Old Man Reid, a case that was scheduled to begin in national court but is one that the defendant chose to drop.

I want to discuss Exhibit E, which is a conversation in which OldManReidGaming had used his legal expertise to indicate to YerLoss that YerLoss could have won an easy court case against Axeman_76 for breach of contract. Axeman_76 is the world's wealthiest man as the leader of the Nation of Isaac, so his sudden dropping YerLoss as a legal client during a court case would have meant that YerLoss could have sued Axeman_76 for a hefty sum of money. YerLoss indicated that the termination of the attorney-client relationship was consensual, which effectively ended his chance to have a lawsuit. Exhibit E has no meaning as it pertains to this case.

As for Exhibit D, the defense fails to realize that the territory of Belize was constructed under the flag of East Old Man Reid. It would require a war with a peace treaty ceding the land or a consensual purchase of the land to make ownership of Belize to be transferred to another party. The defense can complain as much as they want to about how much YerLoss and his slaves built up and terraformed that land, but that doesn't change the fact that the land was subject to the jurisdiction of East Old Man Reid. The common law in East Old Man Reid gives the President power to appoint territorial governors and in this case the President tried to do so in an attempt to protect the interests of a corporation run jointly by East Old Man Reid and the Nation of Isaac. Exhibit D is nothing more than propaganda meant to assuage a citizen.

The devastating issue that the defense completely failed to bring up is his citizenship during the war. From Exhibit C, we can interpret that YerLoss had East Old Man Reid citizenship revoked at 9:43 PM on 12/12/2022. Based on the defense's interpretation of Exhibit E, YerLoss appears to have decided to begin acting as a citizen of the Nation of Isaac after 9:26 PM on 12/12/2022. Regardless if the court chooses to believe the prosecution's or the defense's interpretation of when YerLoss became loyal to the Nation of Isaac, it is clear that they ceased being a citizen of East Old Man Reid on this day.

At that point, the defense has also done nothing to attempt to disprove guilt of any charge. Based on the above paragraph, we know that the defendant was not a citizen of East Old Man Reid after, at the latest, 9:43 PM on 12/12/2022. President OldManReidGaming prepared his country for war at approximately 10:30 PM on 12/12/2022, as shown in Exhibit F. He can bear witness that none of the locations enumerated in the charges were damaged before that time. Damages enumerated in the charges were not observed by the East Old Man Reid President until 11:36 PM on 12/14/2022, in which an audience was solicited by Quinn's Country President Vlueban. In that audience, Vlueban was able to get the following witnesses to see the damages:
- TallerFiber1
- Axeman_76
- HAZ6R
- Cowman7

The prosecution will be calling on each of these witnesses, alongside Vlueban, to give a testimony regarding what they saw in the damages.

The prosecution will begin by cross-examining HAZ6R.

Prosecution (OldManReidGaming): HAZ6R, please begin your testimony by describing the buildings you saw damaged in New Reid City during the war.

Witness (HAZ6R): The buildings I saw damaged were the main government building with Ardeshir inside it unharmed, New Reid apartments, a building covered with diamonds that had multiple diamond armor suits stolen as well and the Reid statism as well had heavy damage to its sign and field.

Prosecution (OldManReidGaming): So you observed damage to the Capitol building (quartz building in New Reid City), theft from the armor stand building, and damage to the baseball stadium. Is that correct? And what kind of damage did you see to the buildings? Would you say it was excessive?

Witness (HAZ6R): Those are the buildings correct. I observed excessive damages to those buildings. The damage occurred to the buildings seemed to have been done by a pickaxe holding down in lines across the buildings.

Before proceeding with the cross examination. The prosecution states that Exhibit E, has no relation to the movement of the case. However, it was given in order to inform the court of the background. I am moving for this case to be tried under a different court and not under War crimes due to the statements of Reid himself.

The prosecution states that I have done nothing so far to disprove guilt of my charges, however, before doing so I believe that the court would agree with me, that the following evidence and the basis of my argument should, would call for a proper discussion on the weight of these crimes, whether they be war or domestic.

I would like to contest Reid's statements of "Not being a citizen of mine at the time" Given recent evidence. While he states that I had failed to bring up my citizenship during the war, he directly contradicts this with statements he himself had made at the time. If the judges, would kindly take a look at exhibit G. They'll notice that Reid had stated that I had still been a citizen at this time, please take note that there were no damages done to his building before this statement. Prior to the declaration of war, he had been in a negotiation with Axeman_76, regarding a treaty to decide my citizenship, however, the negotiation fell through after not gaining a substantial amount of wealth from the Isaac of Nation.

As you may all know, I had not partaken in the negotiation nor was I apart of the treaty and wasn't given express confirmation until afterwards.

As exhibit H will show, these are deleted messages that took place shortly before the declaration of war.

Defendant (YerLoss): Were you aware of the state that the alleged attacked buildings were, before the attack?

Witness (HAZ6R): Yes I was. None of the buildings had damage prior.

Defendant (YerLoss): Were you also aware of the number of diamond armor suits available at the time? If you were, how were they confined at the time?

Witness (HAZ6R): A total of 16 armor stands containing full diamond armor sets

Defendant (YerLoss): So you are confirming that you had seen them prior to any theft?

Witness (HAZ6R): Yes.

Defendant (YerLoss): Okay, to recap this. You noted that most of the buildings were excessively damaged, however, the building covered with diamonds which held the diamond armors, was only robbed of its contents?

Witness (HAZ6R): Yes.

As seen throughout the maps, the Confederate Provinces of Old Man Reid have broken international United Nations law by expanding into international waters. According to Article V of the United Nations Charter:

"To be able to build into maritime territory, a nation must exert exclusive influence or own the territory surrounding the land around the body of water. ... In the cases of rivers, this is owning both banks of a river. If a nation does not meet these requirements, the maximum they may build into maritime territory is three blocks from the shore that they own and must be above the waterline."

The Confederate Provinces of Old Man Reid have built past the three block limit in Log Bog, as well as in Southmost Lake Aternos. While a case could potentially be made that Log Bog is within EOMR sphere of influence, that cannot be said about Southmost Lake Aternos.

The blocks past the three block limit, as well as those at or below it are also not in accordance with the law as the dirt blocks are below the waterline. All expansion into both Log Bog and Southmost Lake Aternos has been below the waterline.

This is the territory in question, before and after the alleged expansion into the water. I am submitting these two maps as evidence Exhibit A and B. The issue with Article V of the Charter is that it gives a blanket definition of maritime territory when swamp like Log Bog is a very questionable area to be considered maritime territory.

New Reid City swampland has been proven to be the most volatile biome to exist in, with the following natural disasters occurring that caused significant change to the landscape:
- Global warming
- Mudslides
- Drought

With these natural disasters having such an influence on the coastline, there is bound to be natural changes to the coast. There is no evidence that the government of East Old Man Reid called for any unreasonable or illegal expansion into the swamp.

Secondly, the map depicts Southmost Lake Aternos as being solely the lake biome, not the swamp biome. Therefore, it is actually Log Bog that is the sole entity in which the prosecution is making any complaints.

Log Bog has never been a navigable body of water and therefore all roads there have been legal. The original road, Main Street, has extended into West New Reid City since February of 2022 with no complaints. Tower Turnpike and Questionably Legal OMR Dirt Highway 2.0, the new streets, follow the exact same style as Main Street.

I'd like to point out the the 'k' and 'e' of Southmost Lake Aternos are, in fact, in the swamp biome. Regardless, to determine the boundaries of Southmost Lake Aternos, I invite expert of the world and head of the Cartography Commissions Axeman_76.

Thank you Axeman_76, I'd be happy to help settle this dispute about bodies of water. I sure do love bodies of water! Biomes actually don't determine the bodies of water, but are only one factor of many. Using evidence exhibit C, from a historic map, I can determine the boundaries of Southmost Lake Aternos and Log Bog. What I determined is shown in evidence exhibit D. Back to you Axeman_76.

Thank you Axeman_76 for your expert help. As you can see in exhibit E and F, some of the biggest illegal expansion occurs in Southmost Lake Aternos, which is undoubtedly international waters. As for Log Bog, it is contested wether or not it is legal or not.

In exhibit E you can see that Log Bog was, in fact, navigable up until an illegal expansion was made that blocked boats in the south. I will also reiterate that all expansion is below the waterline, which is also a violation of the UN charter.

Due to this not being the Confederate Provinces of Old Man Reid's first offense when it comes to building into international waters, the United Nations recommends a fine of 20-30 diamonds.

The United Nations recommends a fine of 20-30 diamonds for five egregious expansions, however, three of these expansions are legal by the definition of complete ownership of a body of water.

The boundary line in Exhibit C of the East OMR Sphere of Influence almost exactly coincides with the boundary line in Exhibit D of Log Bog. This means that East OMR has exclusive ownership of Log Bog. Article V of the United Nations Charter, building more than three blocks out into maritime territory is only prohibited where exclusive ownership does not apply. With Log Bog's legality, we must look to the 2nd Amendment.

“AMENDMENT II

ARTICLE I
It is unlawful for any entity to fill a part of a river so that no boat may travel through it without express consent from the United Nations Assembly or the United Nations Department of the Interior. Owning the shoreline of either side of a river grants the owner ownership of the river, but the owner must ensure that the river remains passable for boats. The penalty for filling a river includes a minimum fine of one gold ingot and restoring the river to a state comparable to what it had been before being filled. The United Nations or river's owner may take additional legal actions if the circumstances require them.

ARTICLE II
A nation owning all shores of a body of water owns the body of water, but may not build more than 15 blocks from a shore without the permission of the United Nations Assembly or the United Nations Department of the Interior. If the body of water leads to other bodies of water, it is unlawful to fill it to the point that no boat may traverse it.

ARTICLE III
A country may also petition the United Nations to build a harbor on their coastline beyond the block limit in a multinational body of water. This is to be permitted with a majority vote in the Assembly and oversight from the Department of Transportation. If a country establishes territory on the shoreline of an ocean, the legal limit to the distance that a country can build from the shore extends to seven blocks.”

The centrally located violation and the bottom right violation are both less than fifteen blocks. The top right violation, Questionably Legal OMR Dirt Highway 2.0, would require a measurement, however, each point appears to be within 15 blocks of existing land at the time of publication of the map preceding the road's construction.

The bottom left violation is also not a violation, as shown in Exhibit E, the land where the building is existed before. If anything, the peninsula there shrunk. There is less land within this rectangle, herein Exhibit G, presently than there ever has been before.

This leaves us with the top left violation and I can only attribute that land expansion to the natural movement of swampland. As I said in my opening argument, swampland is incredibly volatile. There has been no construction on this land so I fail to see any foul. Exhibit E shows the changes are gradual and each change has come in increments of three blocks or less.

I also must remind the plaintiff that Log Bog is not a river. Article I of the 2nd Amendment to the United Nations Charter only guarantees that rivers must be navigable.

Overall, the recommended penalty does not make any sense. There are five accusations of egregious overexpansion into a body of water and one accusation of filling a river. The plaintiff recommended a fine of 20-30 diamonds, equivalent to 3.33-5 diamonds per offense. The river penalty is recommended at one gold ingot and restoration to the river's original state. Three of the five accusations of overexpansion are legal. One accusation can be attributed to natural shifts in the land. This only leaves one that can even remotely be considered overexpansion. Therefore, if any of these accusations can even be considered legitimate, the defense recommends a total fine of 4 diamonds and 20 gold ingots.

I called the expert cartography commissioner again and he agrees that under amendment II, the Confederate Provinces of East Old Man Reid had influence over the entirety of Log Bog, therefore it had the right to build up to 15 blocks into the body of water.

The top left expansion you say can be "attributed to natural shifts in the land". Not a single natural disaster has occurred in West New Reid City. Also if a natural shift is to be believed, it would not be an incident isolated to an extremely small area. Exhibit E also does not show any gradual change like you say, but one large change.

As for the bottom left violation, it is entirely a violation. The land did not exist there before. Regardless if blocks were removed from the eastern side of the peninsula, there was a large expansion on the western side. In case you have poor sight, I have blown up the change in evidence exhibit H and I to help you.

The gold ingot and restoration you refer to is not a recommendation, but an absolute minimum required by law. The United Nations continues to recommend a fine of 20-30 diamonds for repeated offenses and lies about obvious evidence.

Plaintiff, what are the exact items you are trying to show as wrongdoings by my client? You have now added lying about obvious evidence to your list. So far, you have included five allegations of wrongful building into maritime territory, one allegation of rendering maritime territory impassable, and added that this is a repeated offense. Please cite the court cases where East Old Man Reid was fined or otherwise found guilty of violations to maritime law. Please also elaborate as to what constitutes as obvious for evidence and where the defense has issued deliberately false statements to mislead the court. Please also state a fine amount that each alleged violation should count for.

In acknowledging that ownership of Log Bog made the 15 block expansions legal, then that effectively dropped any case as to the expansions of Questionably Legal OMR Dirt Highway 2.0, the second Cathedral of OMR, and Tower Turnpike (center and two right alleged violations from Exhibit F).

In looking closer at Exhibit E, I will concede that the change is less gradual. The map's file format made the second frame appear as though the change was gradual.

As for an analysis of Evidence G and H, the violation appears to be very easily fixed. That looks like at least two blocks of just dirt next to the building, something that can easily be restored to its natural water state.

As you should know, this court case is about the illegal expansion into international waters. Three of the five areas pointed out in exhibit E have been ruled legal expansion by the Cartography Commissions. This does not lessen the United Nations recommended fine as there are still multiple areas that are illegal expansions have occurred. There is no fine for each individual violation.

In Case 12: United Nations v. Confederate Provinces of East Old Man Reid, the Confederate Provinces of East Old Man Reid was found guilty of violations of maritime law.

The obvious misleading evidence is for another case and does not need to be further discussed at this current time.

After consulting with the Cartography Commission, exhibits H and I show a change in a 5 blocks into international waters. Something that has not been restored.

I believe it should now be time for the court to decide on a verdict as it seems we both have presented all evidence and discussed all notable sections of this case.

Before the court decides, I want to point out the following:

A repeat offender is someone that has been fined or prosecuted for the same violation multiple times. The Confederate Provinces of East Old Man Reid is not a repeat offender of violations of maritime law until a second case proves the country is guilty again. The repeated offense accusation is exaggerated by the plaintiff.

Since the plaintiff wants to make this about alleged illegal expansion into international waters, there are two violations to look at. The first is land that is currently vacant, something that can be restored easily. The second is land that is an expansion of five blocks. Although there is a building there, the land can be cut back two blocks without affecting the building.

These are the only two allegations still under consideration. If the court finds these to be significant enough to fine the Confederacy of East Old Man Reid, the fine should not be as high as 20-30 diamonds. Case 12 had no fine and had a restoration to the affected space's original state. Since the land can be easily restored, that is what should happen. Only if a building makes it impossible to revert the land to its original form should there be a fine.

Objection. You couldn't simply "cut back two blocks", you would have to remove all expanded blocks. only blocks above the waterline are legal within three blocks of the coast.

After further deliberation, I, Judge Cowman7, have decided on a 25 diamond fine and restoration of a water pathway through Log Bog as well as a removal of the northernmost infraction on Southmost Lake Aternos for The Confederate Provinces of East Old Man Reid.

While the argument OldManReidGaming made against Log Bog being a river is true, the expansion on and covering of exits and entrances of the waterway goes against the principles of the UN and it's charter. As specified in Article II of the 2nd Amendment:

“ARTICLE II
A nation owning all shores of a body of water owns the body of water, but may not build more than 15 blocks from a shore without the permission of the United Nations Assembly or the United Nations Department of the Interior. If the body of water leads to other bodies of water, it is unlawful to fill it to the point that no boat may traverse it.”

Exhibit F presented by Axeman_76 clearly shows that land bridges within Log Bog prevent the navigation of the bog and while OldManReidGaming argues that Log Bog has never been a navigable body of water, I myself have taken boats through the body of water, along with many other pioneers. Thus the construction done by EOMR is shown to be in violation of Article II of the 2nd Amendment of the UN Charter due to Log Bog leading to Southmost Lake Aternos and Triangulo Slough.

Infractions have also been made on Southmost Lake Aternos which will be corrected only on the northernmost infraction. The building bordering Southmost Lake Aternos as well as Log Bog will be allowed to remain. The reasoning for this is because of the established infastructure it brings could be fatal to OldManReidGaming so a fine will be sufficient.

To summarize, the 2nd Amendment has a goal to preserve a reasonable pathway for water navigation on the server but also prevents the over-development of the beautiful landscape of our server. I believe that EOMR's buildings and expansion combats this goal. As a Judge, I would deem a reclamation of the waterways complete after a bridge is erected in place of the current pathways.

In consideration of the present arguments and evidence, I hereby find the defendant guilty of unlawful expansion infracting on Article V of the UN Charter. The defendant is hereby sentenced to a fine of 25 diamonds and the removal of the infracting expansion and development near the southern most part of Lake Aternos, aside from the building bordering the southernmost part of Lake Aternos, within the next 5-10 business days. In consideration of this ruling, I believe it would be in the defendant’s best interest to modify the building bordering the southern-most portion of Lake Aternos to ensure its future legality.

OldManReidGaming has long since valued my territory, going back to the infamous bee situation, and attempting to sue me for my storage room door. OldManReidGaming has now greifed my territory for seemingly no reason at all. The action of placing dripstone on the bottom of my tree farm as well as a pillar of honey is not appreciated.

You're absolutely right I do value your territory and that is why I delivered gifts of honey and dripstone. Let's see what was easier to clean up, this or the sweet berries in all of the storage chests in my country? How does this compare to cleaning up my road system after your cronies expanded it to such a ridiculous size that the OMR Report published an article about a New Reid City drought? I find it quite comical that you, of all people, would take offense to such a harmless action. You may recall that your participation in an action covering my buildings in dirt even led to a war.

This does not excuse my actions but I have not taken the honey nor the dripstone back, meaning that Nelsonia gained resources out of this. If Nelsonia seeks monetary compensation, that would be ridiculous as I have not received any compensation from him for a storage system ravaged by sweet berries, the time lost in the New Reid City drought, or the dirt coverings in the buildings.

I urge the court to rule that griefing actions in which the amount of time to restore the griefed land to a satisfactory condition is minimal have no punishment other than the griefed entity may keep any materials left in the incident. Only in cases where restoration is impossible or where it takes an obscene amount of time should it merit any sort of monetary compensation.

I vote in favor of Nelsonia, as griefing of all types should be punished.

In the New World colonies of East OMR, Axeman_76 led a donkey with items in the chest into the Bee Igloo, a hazardous place which contains bees and fire. As shown in national case Axeman_76 vs. Old Man Reid's Country (February 2019), fire is very dangerous to living things. If something is on fire for too long, it will die. Axeman_76 has a lot of experience with this. He was never given permission to ride the East OMR donkey and led the donkey, containing a chest with three stacks of dripstone and dripstone blocks, into the fire where it would die.

I will credit Axeman_76 for trying to bring the donkey out of the fire and then helping to get another donkey. However, East OMR is still lacking a great deal of dripstone and therefore we request three stacks of dripstone blocks and three stacks of dripstone, or a monetary equivalent, as compensation. Another donkey was generously provided to East OMR so the loss of dripstone is the only casualty we claim.

While I may have a lot of experience with fire and its dangerous properties, I was unprepared for the amount of smoke produced by the campfires which was trapped the, poorly ventilated, igloo. Thus, I would prefer if the to the cause of death of the donkey was referred to as being gassed to death, rather than burned to death.

While the death of the ass was very unfortunate, in an attempt to save the animal, I too was severely injured and was almost killed. Despite my valiant efforts, I was unable to to save the donkey who died from its wounds. Out of respect of your ass, I will be willing to donate five (5) golden ingots as a settlement. While you may value the dripstone, you alone are the only one. I believe the destruction of it was a betterment to the world.

According to the United Nations Charter, Article III, Section IV, "The Speaker is to appoint a Director for each bureau of the bureaucracy established by the United Nations and reserves the right to pass an executive order, forcing a bureau to act in a certain way, within the legal limits of power allocated to a specific bureau. No bureau may go outside of the limits of power allocated by the legislature."

According to the United Nations Charter, Article V, Section I, "Borders between nations are to be decided by a United Nations Bureau known as the Cartography Commission" and "The Cartography Commission publishes the borders between nations and determines the Spheres of Influence in which a nation directly exerts influence."

Speaker TallerFiber1 ordered a fine of the Confederacy of East Old Man Reid for building in the Sphere of Influence of Crippal, attempting to enforce the law of the United Nations. Based on precedents of Speakers enforcing laws through executive orders, this was justified. Considering the matter was concerning national borders, the Cartography Commission would be an appropriate Bureau to enforce the executive order. However, the Cartography Commission is not legally permitted to change the order given. The Speaker ordered a one-diamond fine and the Cartography Commissioner said that he was going to levy a fine of two diamonds, an act not legal under Article III, Section IV and Article V, Section I of the United Nations Charter.

The Speaker did, indeed, raise the fine after recognizing the Cartography Commissioner's rationale for trying to force a raised price. This, however, does not mean that the Cartography Commissioner is permitted to go outside of his power to force an increase of a fine his Bureau is meant to enforce. East Old Man Reid is going to pay the full two-diamond price, but is suing the United Nations for allowing a Bureau Director to go outside of their power and attempting to illegally double a fine.

The Cartography Commission did not go outside of its powers. The statement that the fine was doubled was merely a heavy recommendation to the speaker, who would then recognize the recommendation and increase the fine.

As for the executive order and the original price of the fine is another issue of itself. The fact that you were the ghost writer for the executive order, thus deciding your own fee. There was no consultation with the cartography commission, the expert bureau for the situation, rather the offender of the crime choosing the punishment.

I must ask and demand a response to the question: if Speaker Grum had not taken your statement as advice and amend his order, would you have enforced the order as it stood or would you have forced East Old Man Reid to pay more than the Speaker ordered?

A ghost writer to this executive order, I am not. As the Bureau of Records Director, I was consulted regarding how to write an executive order after I notified the Speaker about my country's unintentional wrongdoing. Indeed, the Speaker did not know about the details of the land built on, but he assessed a fine based on what he saw fit from his prior knowledge. There is no evidence that I told Grum what to set the fine; he chose the price to pay completely of his own accord.

The issue of this is not that you "recommended" a fine but it is in the language used for this "recommendation." Your exact words were: "The cartography commission is doubling the fine because the land was 100% flat rather than useless" (refer to screenshot at the beginning of this thread if original message is altered). Note that I have placed emphasis on the phrase "is doubling." That does not say "recommends the fine is doubled" or "suggests the fine be increased." It states that the Cartography Commission will be enforcing a fine higher than what the Speaker says.

It was a lucky thing that the Speaker took this as advice because Axeman_76's statement was unenforceable on the grounds he did not have the position to issue a fine. I am calling upon the court to rule that recommendations for increases in penalties must be worded as such, otherwise this can give too much power to Bureau Directors. Ruling against East OMR may uphold the ability of United Nations Bureaus to subvert the Speaker without the consent of any other parties involved, impeding the justice system.

You are having me respond to a hypothetical situation. The fact of the matter is it didn’t happen, the speaker took the recommendation. If the Cartography Commission did, in fact, enforce an illegal fine, that would indeed be a court case, but it did not. I don’t really see your case, suing on a hypothetical. It seems more like you should have just made a resolution for rewording recommendations to the speaker.

As for the recommendation, it was just that, a blunt recommendation. If the speaker didn’t accept it, the Cartography Commission would have simply talked to the speaker until the speaker was fully informed on the situation and it would then be up to him to decide wether or not to accept the recommendation.

I vote in favor of the UN, as the cartographer was within his rights to recommend an increase in the fine.

I vote in favor of the UN, as Grum stated, the cartographer was in the right to recommend an increased fine, though it skirted the line between recommendation and enforcement. The speaker, though the statement was worded strongly, chose to take it as a recommendation rather than a statement of the law.

I vote in favor of the UN, as the cartographer was within his rights to recommend an increase in the fine based on his understanding of the geographic and political layout of the nations involved.

I was happily going around and trying to exist within Nelsonia, a place that has allowed me entry since the peace agreement was made in February of 2020. Unfortunately, I was at quite low health and was surprised to find phantoms attacking me and so I tried to enter the storage center to seek refuge. This would prove to be quite the difficult task, as I would fail to find the button, taking more damage as I searched and waited for the door to open. I thought that I had entered sufficiently such that it would not damage me but the door closed with me still inside, prompting me to suffocate to death. Upon respawning, I returned and found that there was a lack of a sign indicating that people with less than two HP can die if they get stuck in the door. Therefore, I demand compensation for a curse of vanishing diamond helmet and the emotional trauma that I lost for the lack of warning about the dangers of this door.

My door has a reasonable amount of time to enter and exit, in addition to doing only 1 heart of damage IF one gets stuck they can easily exit by pressing w or d. There is only so far one can go to idiot-proof the redstone contraptions in their territory. Many times when getting stuck you only take 1/2 a heart of damage due to the blocks pushing you out of the way. I think this was a deliberate death by OMR to cause controversy.

Correction: you take 1 heart of damage if you do nothing because blocks push you out of the way, you take none if you move through by pushing w or d most of the time. Therefore I should not be held liable for this death.

Indeed, there is only so far one can go to idiot-proof the redstone contraptions and this was not enough. There needs to be a sign warning idiots about the dangers of being directly in the center of the block. I was not pushed and did not have any sign telling me that pushing w or d would help. Therefore, a written warning is necessary to idiot-proof this. There has never been a sign on this, nor any other redstone contraption in Nelsonia, warning of the dangers of getting stuck in certain hazardous parts. The tree farm is an accident waiting to happen with someone getting inadvertently blown up, for example. Proper warning signs must be obvious or else this will continue to make redstone contraptions inhospitable for the minecraft-challenged community.

There is only so far one should have to go for idiots like the one who died in the door. Voting in the favor of OMR in this case opens up the door to even more redundant cases. For example if I happened to fall off of OMR's large bridges or die in his territory due to terrible lighting conditions would that constitute a reimbursement or a court case? How far would the signage have to go before the entire server is idiot-proof? What this case is happens to be a death due to negligence and any other deaths in foreign territories have been seen as such up until this point. Even though it is a redstone contraption that has done the damage it is a fairly simple door. In addition, OMR was familiar with the timings and surface workings of the door when it opens and closes. This familiarity can be seen when he and others worked to break the contraption when they would arrive in my territory. In conclusion this case should be dismissed as a death due to negligence and any signage on simple contraptions such as doors should be required.

Reid seems to just be a dumbass. I vote with Ungle.

I do concur Reid is prone to dumbasery, I vote in favor of Ungle.

Yeah, read seems to not be exhibiting high cognitive functions to use the door properly. Given the likelihood he recovered from the situation afterwards, I vote in favor of Ungle.

United Nations v. Cowman7 is a War Crime Tribunal, different from most cases seen by the United Nations.

The charges against the defendant are:
- Two counts of inflicting damage to a United Nations international park
- Contempt of Court

The defendant plead guilty to one charge of Inflicting Damage to a United Nations International Park, innocent to one charge of Inflicting Damage to a United Nations International park and innocent to one charge of Contempt of Court.

OMR claimed the auction ended at 6 and the highest bidder got the land, however he then extended the deadline, not before 6 but at 7:15, a whole hour and 15 minutes after the auction ended. He must reward the highest bidder, Grum, the land at the price of 12 diamonds instead of granting it to whoever bidder after 6.

The auction had an end time of 6:00, indeed. However, while it may be frowned upon, there was an attempt by the auctioneer to extend the deadline after the auction ended because a bid was submitted late. Upon seeing the controversy posed, the auctioneer withdrew the auction, transferring the territory to nobody and taking money from nobody. Nothing changed: nobody benefitted and nobody ended up worse.

There is also the matter of the finality of the sale process. A treaty is the final part in territory sales, as seen in a related case with the Treaty of the 1st Bank of OMR Park between the Confederate Provinces and the Nation of Isaac in which the territory west of the territory in question was sold. The two sides negotiated and agreed to this treaty. The auction is simply the negotiation part of the treaty, and the seller did not officially sign off. The seller could have decided at the end, and they eventually did, that they were unsatisfied with the price that the property was being sold at and so they were going to keep the land for themselves.

Precedent matters and every auction prior to this one has ended at the designated time, making the original stated end time a treaty of sorts with a strong precedent that shall not be broken.

The end time was a mere suggestion for ending the negotiation process and was not legally binding. The end time is not a part of any sort of treaty.

He also withdrew the auction after being sued proving that he is admitting guilt.

OldManReidGaming has disregarded the International Waters resolution, the resolution the he wrote, and built over the international waters of Lake Aternos. As article 1 described, building over international waters is "considered an act of war against the United Nations" and thus very illegal. It is deemed illegal even though it does not touch the water because it goes the three block rule that the resolution deems legal (any building that overhangs international water more than three blocks is considered illegal). The building also has no use, supposed to stop elytra travel in and out of his border. It does not accomplish this task what so ever, with flying over and below it.

Aside from Axeman_76's partially correct statement about the purpose and functionality of the building in question, there is no law about airspaces and the construction of the wall was made to be very close to the shore of the Confederate Provinces' coastline on South Lake Aternos. Any deviation is almost negligible. If we really want to make it about being too close to international waters, the wall is at least 20 blocks higher than international waters, making this an issue going outside of any law the United Nations has passed. The intentions of the project were not to wage war on the United Nations but to defend a country that has had historically poor defense and constant threat from some entity or another.

Negligence is criminal Reid. That being said I vote with Reid as I find the elytra defense to not interfere whatsoever with international waters and it closely follows the coastline and even though it’s stupid it was not made in malice and has done more damage to him then anyone else. [Later changed vote]

His furthest point of his building overhangs the international water by 18 blocks, far more than any "almost negligible" deviation. As for you claiming it doesn't apply to any laws because it's high up, the International Waters resolution states that "The construction of man-made islands in the inland sea known as Lake Aternos ... is to be prohibited." This does not specify wether or not said island has to be in the water. It is a floating manmade island in the inland sea known as Lake Aternos, and thus illegal.

I was wrongfully impeached due to pettiness from OMR, I was selected by the cartography commission because of having the least land, I then did nothing illegal, but was forced to defend myself from a fake impeachment, this is illegal as there was no impeachable offense, I had done literally nothing, meaning I should have not been impeached, I am calling for restitution for the pain this has caused me. And calling for this to never happen to another soul in the UN.

No argument provided.

The United Nations Assembly voted that all nations would pay a tax based off of their wealth level, and Nelsonia never paid their tax, hurting a United Nations with barely enough financial resources to stay afloat. Nelsonia never submitted it and, Cowman7 has, at many times, boasted about never paying his debt. The United Nations cannot permit debts like this to keep growing and must show nations that taxes are not optional and are a vital part of keeping the United Nations operational.

I'm too busy for this.

It is a valid point to suggest that the representation of the Papal State of West Old Man Reid in the United Nations was not done legally. It does say in the Charter that all nations seeking representation must have an absolute majority of existing represented nations, however this was never enforced, setting a legal precedent of ignoring that part. Due to that, the Cloak and Dagger Society was admitted into the United Nations without question due to the peace treaty signed. The Papal State of Old Man Reid's dissolution treaty established the Papal States of East and West Old Man Reid, with the East being accepted without question. The West, however, is being rejected. Then, there is also the matter of Crippal being accepted into the United Nations without even having any sort of treaty accepting it at all. Point is, this is simply discrimination by Speaker Axeman_76 against the nation run by ElectroKitten1 on account of him being called "a furry" by Axeman_76 and his cronies.

Axeman_76 went outside of the scope of his own powers in order to delegitimize the authority of a country that legally exists and that has done nothing to warrant expulsion from the United Nations. The Speaker cannot expel a member without the vote of an absolute majority of the United Nations Assembly. If the Papal State of West Old Man Reid is not permitted to have representation, neither should the Papal State of East Old Man Reid, Crippal, or the Cloak and Dagger Society.

Then there is also the fact that the Papal State of West Old Man Reid has been permitted to vote and participate in United Nations affairs until the time of unjust expulsion. The Papal State of West Old Man Reid had the ability to vote on relevant issues to their country, but now lack that power because of a Speaker going outside of their powers to kick them out of the voting forum.

To counter your point about an "unjust expulsion" from the UN, he was in fact never legally allowed to join the UN in the first place. Yes I agree we should have voted on the other countries, but it's too late for that now; there was no objection to them being admitted then or now.

No matter my thoughts on Furry Boi, he is not the reason why I brought up the matter, it was that you were using him as a puppet vote. He was a non-productive member of the server, only ever half-building a small house and nothing else. This is obvious abuse of him, you were able to "buy" a vote in the UN by giving him land he didn't have a right to.

I also did not "expel" him from the UN, but rather brought up an issue that was almost unanimously agreed upon (other than you). He was illegally voting, and we made him stop. As for it never being enforced in the past, that was the issue; it was never enforced. Now it will be in the future, or at least I hope it will be. That's like getting pulled over for going 10 over the speed limit, and trying to get out of a ticket by saying they never pulled you over in the past.

The reason that EOMR was allowed in, but not WOMR is because you owned the previous country (OMRC). You did not completely dissolve all of your country, then forge a new one; you split it in two and renamed your portion. You still control part of what you had, while Furry Boi has never owned anything before, and thus does not get an automatic spot in the UN.

The Cartography Commission recognized that the Papal State of WOMR controls that territory, meaning the United Nations recognizes it as a country. Every other country recognized by the United Nations is permitted to have a vote, yet WOMR is not granted this right. International law still applies to WOMR, yet they are not allowed to have a say in what laws govern them. What kind of democratic society with the goals of promoting international harmony is that if not everyone has the right to have a say in the decision-making?

By giving Furry Boi the right to be a nation and the right to vote, the voting process is more stable as a whole, and it replaces some of the lost characters from the UN which have yet to return.

REID YOU SON OF A BITCH

I do not drop the case Reid did it again

As Reid just demonstrated, Reid continues to forge votes and statements by other people without any serious consequences. He forged Danav’s vote in the previous Speaker election and lied about it. He just forged a statement saying I drop this case while I was away. He has done this in the past and he has not learned. If this continues I will take justice into my own hands

That argument was forged by me.

It was not. Here is my signature.

The resolutions Revolutionary War Wasn't in Vain 2.0 and Revolutionary War Wasn't in Vain 3.0 are abominations to the freedom the United Nations stands for. The United Nations' purpose, according to the United Nations Charter, is to promote international harmony, and blocking freedom of speech in international matters will lead to tyranny. If whoever has more power can shut down opposing viewpoints because they do not use proper spellings, even if the meaning can be clearly deciphered, it gives power to allow those with power to reject anything they disagree with. The United Nations Assembly, if it is to actually uphold its principles, cannot obstruct free speech in such a manner. All spellings, so long as the meaning is clear, should be allowed.

No argument provided.

I vote for the UN, with its argument that the resolution OldManReid is talking about makes it so you cannot purposely misspell words. For an example: "favour". This is an obvious purposeful spelling that has been used in the past. If this were to be repealed what is to stop people from completely changing their arguments, saying that they just misspelled it. Repealing this resolution would lead to extreme exploitation on all sides and only increase the amount of sketchy activities in the UN.

As well, to counter OldManReid's argument that it is a freedom of speech violation, there in fact no violation. The resolution only applies to official documents, and official documents only, such as resolutions and voting. where misspellings could lead to major consequences

In disregard of the recently passed United Nations resolution on International Waters, OldManReidGaming has established a set of man-made islands near his territory. As this is an act of war, according to the resolution, OldManReidGaming should seek to immediately relinquish these islands to the United Nations.

According to the Cartography Commission’s maps, the former Papal State of Old Man Reid, and now the Papal State of East Old Man Reid, control the land around that portion of Lake College. The same law banning the expansion into international waters states that, if a country owns the land surrounding a body of water, the country owns the body of water. No other country owns land surrounding Lake College and, owning the Old Man Reid College Cross Country Trail, which surrounds Lake College, the Papal State is East Old Man Reid has the right to use Lake College as it is the lake’s rightful owner.

Because the water is uncontested, OldManReidGaming and the leader of the Papal State of East Old Man Reid should be able to build. It is not international waters. If the land isn’t in his actual territory that changes things. In order for it to be completely controlled by OldManReidGaming and Furry, the official territory must surround it, not a sphere of influence. On this occasion I still would support OldManReidGaming’s choice to build over a small portion of water simply because I do not care.

International Waters was written by no other, but OldManReid himself, the exact article that he himself broke a mere day or two after. He does not "own land" on all sides of the Lake College, but rather it is his sphere of influence and not actual territory owned by OldManReid. This means that he does not, in fact, own all, or even most of the land surrounding the lake, thus making it UN-controlled.

Isle of Knoo v. TRaTO is a War Crime Tribunal, different from most cases seen by the United Nations. TRaTO is an alliance consisting of multiple nations: Nelsonia, Papal state of East Old Man Reid, Crippal, Quinn’s Country, and the Nation of Isaac as a partial member. The following members of TRaTO are exempt from this court case: Quinn's Country and the Nation of Isaac.

The charges against Nelsonia and Crippal are:
- Excessive damage to property
- Violations of the procedure of declaring war

The charges against Papal state of East Old Man Reid are:
- Complicity to the crime of excessive damage to property
- Violations of the procedure of declaring war

All defendants plead guilty to all charges.

The Nation of Isaac et. al. v. TheCowman_7 is a War Crime Tribunal, different from most cases seen by the United Nations.

The charges against the defendant are:
- Illegal use of explosives
- Excessive damage to property
- Violations of the procedure of declaring war

The defendant pleads guilty to all charges.

The election was unfair due to the fact that there was only one vote. There should be a minimum of at least two votes for anything to pass. If only one person is to vote, there is no chance for any counter-argument, thus essentially rigging the election for failure. For the argument that everyone else abstained, they should have to vocally abstain. This is the UN Council, meaning more than one person voting. If less than two people vote, the resolution, etc. should either be withdrawn or the voting time extended.

While Axeman_76 presents a fair argument, we have had past instances of one lone vote deciding motions without any public outcry. The most relevant example would be the election for Speaker with TallerFiber1 taking the only vote cast in early August. The legal precedent is on the side of upholding the one-vote rule.

As far as the lawful element, all ambassadors have plenty of time to act. This is not at all similar to the case that sparked OldManReidGaming v. United Nations, in which all nations had less than a minute to vote. This motion prompting this suit had a voting time of 48 hours, in which an overwhelming majority of the United Nations Ambassadors were present and able to vote. However, only one ambassador chose to vote and one chose to declare an abstention after withdrawing the vote he cast. Since all the others had extensive time to vote and none did, they evidently did not care enough about the motion to vote and their inaction, just as it has in every other motion with ambassadors not voting, meant they all abstained. Inaction equals abstention, that's just how it is and how it always should be. If ambassadors choose to do their job and represent their people, that is what they ought to do, but if they do not, they are willingly ceding power to the rest of the Assembly.

While there may have been instances of motions winning with one vote in the past, the motions aren’t on the same level as a war crimes motion being made, or even motions being made specifically for certain nations. Does it make sense that the motion passed not only with one just one vote but a vote from a party that was not involved in the war crimes? No. On the grounds of time: while people are given time to act on passing a motion, that doesn’t force them to vote in favor, in abstention, or against the motion. Additionally, at the time of Reid’s war motion, another motion was created regarding something different entirely, and nothing was done to put the motion on hold. Therefore people’s attention was drawn towards that motion and not the War Crimes motion. We also cannot assume people were able to see your warning about the motion’s deadline drawing near, so it is unfair to consider those unaware of the motion as abstentions. For a motion to pass or fail there needs to be at least two votes. If there are less than two votes, the writer of the motion should either scrap it or put it aside for a later time.

A war crime motion is a very serious motion, indeed, however, it is doing a disservice to the authority of the United Nations to claim that it is more important than a Speaker election or any other election decided by a single vote. The precedent exists and remains functional, and, to prevent the unawareness of a motion on the floor that the plaintiff warns of, the United Nations Assembly or Judiciary should rule that all motions on the floor be evident to all ambassadors voting on a commonplace.

Lack of voting indicates apathy or undecidedness, and if an ambassador feels as such, the United Nations Charter does not force them to declare an abstention but allows their lack of a vote to declare the abstention for them. In fact, the plaintiff has incorrectly stated that "while people are given time to act on passing a motion, that doesn’t force them to vote in favor, in abstention, or against the motion," as the ambassador's use of their voting time does force them to vote for/against the motion or not vote at all.

In conclusion, ambassadors' lack of votes is a preventable manner that has been treated as an abstention for the entirety of the United Nations Assembly voting history. By not voting, ambassadors sacrifice their vote and trust the decision of the rest of the Assembly's votes, and that becomes the vote of one ambassador. Not voting indicates trust in the actions of the one ambassador, and setting the floor at two for votes required to pass motions is unnecessary when all other ambassadors abstain from voting.

Isle of Knoo v. Yahtta is a War Crime Tribunal, different from most cases seen by the United Nations.

The charges against the defendant are:
- Illegal use of explosives
- Excessive damage to property
- Violations of the procedure of declaring war

The defendant pleads guilty to all charges

The recent vote taken to impeach former Speaker OldManReidGaming was given a minimal voting time, when votes for other important measures, such as amendments to the UN Charter, War Crime Tribunals and resolutions with large impacts, took days to vote on. While it is obvious that a leader abusing his power is a dangerous matter, it is necessary to give all eligible voting members the chance to vote and debate the issues on which they are voting. The United Nations is the place to give all member states the chance to work together in a democratic way to make the world a better place, but allowing a member to make such an arbitrarily short voting time takes the democratic values out of the United Nations and gives anyone the ability to start a motion, pass a resolution or amend the UN charter with a majority vote every time they come up with something. If the actions of current Speaker Axeman_76 are deemed legal by the court, there is no telling what kind of an autocratic regime the UN could become.

It is nowhere stated in the charter that there is a minimum amount of time needed for a motion, impeachment, etc. to pass or fail. Nowhere is it illegal in any other way either. If you would like to propose a resolution I feel that that would be a much more productive use of your as well as our time. The next election for speaker is this Monday as well-meaning that time as speaker will probably only be two days, both of which I won’t make any more speedy motions. I propose that we put a 36 hour minimum time for an appeal to pass or fail, giving all parties enough time to get their votes in.