Ostryt v. Culture of Life

[Culture of Life]

JUSTICE COURT OF RIGHT TO LIFE
Ostryt v. Culture of Life
Decided July 26, 2017

---

THE EMPIRE OF OSTRYT,
Plaintiff, represented by United Massachusetts,

v.

THE CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC NATION OF CULTURE OF LIFE,
Defendant, in his official capacity as Founder, representing himself.

---

In 2014, Founder Culture of Life denied the citizenship application of Ostryt based on his vote against a proposal to repeal the General Assembly resolution Reproductive Freedoms. The Founder cited In re Reproductive Freedoms (Justice Court, 22 February 2014) as the reason for denial. Ostryt sued the Founder, claiming that his vote had been a mistake. Subsequently, he did not show up to court, so Devoted Decons, JP, delivered a judgment upholding the denial of citizenship (Ostryt v. Culture of Life, Justice Court, 10 December 2014).

In 2017, Ostryt returned to Right to Life and sued for citizenship again, making the same claim that he had made before. The Founder, in his official capacity, defended the 2014 court order and argued further that relitigation was foreclosed by the principle known as res judicata. According to RTL Code 7:4:

"Any person who wishes to appeal a decision made by the Justice Court must file a notice of appeal with the Senate within 28 days of the Justice Court's decision. The Senate, by majority vote, may waive the requirement of this section if it sees fit to do so."

The Justice Court ultimately ruled in favor of the Founder and against Ostryt.

---

NEW DOLGARIA, JP, delivered the opinion of the Justice Court.

Both sides have made very good points. Ultimately my decision comes down to two points:

Does OstryT have a right to citizenship? Our Constitution states that "citizenship belongs to every member of the regional forums who has a nation present in the region, has taken the oath of citizenship, and has complied with regional law" (RTL Const. 1:1). Despite this wording, players must still apply for citizenship and be approved by the Founder. Therefore, the legal standing that comes with citizenship is not automatically given to those who have met the requirements for citizenship but have not successfully applied yet. It is this distinction which makes Culture of Life's citation of West Appledale v. RTL (Justice Court, 15 September 2015) more relevant that United Massachusetts' citation of Phydios v. Stellonia (Justice Court, 27 November 2015). Even though it is true, as UM points out, that the two issues in these cases are very different (possible cheating vs. questionably pro-life WA vote), the fact is that OstryT does not have the same legal standing that Stellonia had in his case. In retrospect, should the Founder have denied citizenship to OstryT? In light of OstryT's (much delayed) explanation and apparent sincerity, perhaps not. But was it within the Founder's legal duty to deny OstryT citizenship? Yes.

As CoL points out, res judicata and stare decisis confine my abilities as Justice of the Peace. I see no reason to even attempt to contradict these legal principles, which are covered in RTL Code 7 (one of them is even explicitly mentioned), unless some great injustice would occur. Considering that CoL's proposition involving the Senate waiving the 28-day limit on appeals is perfectly reasonable, no such great injustice will result from upholding Devoted Decons' original 2014 decision on this case.

Therefore, despite the eloquent arguments made on both sides, I must clearly side with the defense and rule in favor of Culture of Life. The court recommends that OstryT do as CoL suggested and apply to the Senate for a waiver under RTL Code 7:3-4.