Post by Great Alemonia on Oct 6, 2018 23:18:32 GMT
6th October 2018
in the case of:
Great Alemonia
vs.
Aileram
Application:
Claimaint(s): Great Alemonia
Defendant(s) Minister Aileram, Minister of Domestic Affairs
Additional representation: None
Date of alleged infractions: 06/10/2018
The Right Honourable Aileram, Minister of Domestic Affairs (to be referred to as 'defendant' in the rest of this summary) has been alleged to have breached Section 4.1 of the 'Rights and Freedoms' clause in the Constitution, which is defined as 'All nations shall be entitled to the following rights and freedoms: Freedom of speech and expression;'.
The defendant put the claimant into timeout for the length of one hour, as seen here in Figure 1 for the reason of baiting or trolling, two allegations that the claimant, myself, vehemently denies.
The defendant gave the claimant no warning that a timeout would be an eventuality should the claimant have stopped partaking in alleged 'baiting and trolling' conduct, showing abject disregard for reaching a less harsh outcome. The defendant acknowledges his mistake as seen here in Figure 2, and this must be held to his credit.
However, the defendant continually refused to rectify his mistake, even after personally admitting that he was in the wrong, citing the reason of 'I [defendant] didn't feel much was deserved' (Figure 2), which the claimant alleges is a 'wholly negligent act of leadership'.
The defendant cites 'Same with you', 'Look in the mirror, SUNSHINE [sic]' and '@daniel [Valturus] Shhh! You’ll make the American leftists cry!' as the reasoning for the silencing but neglected to address more profane, insulting and disruptive language, as seen in Figure 3. The claimant identifies as a 'capitalist', and being targetted and labelled as 'fucking BLIND [sic]' constitutes 'trolling and baiting', due to the fact it grossly surpasses the 'offence' committed by the claimant, and thus depicts a double standard incident perpetrated by the defendant. An incident that can only be due to the political and ideological likeness of 'Xingal (DSA)', and the opposing capitalist outlook held by the claimant, signifying a political bias against an ideological critic of the views held by the defendant. Something that can only be seen as an abuse of power in silencing the means of vocalisation of a political opponent - a breach of the constitution, which in turn means a breach in the conduct of the official, resulting, with great regret, in a malfeasance of office.
Remedy/Remedies sought:
The claimant primarily seeks a public apology from the defendant, and any other punishment deemed necessary by the court.
I, Great Alemonia, hereby certify the above to be correct to the best of my knowledge.
