## Case Law - *[[Dispute over Wife being Recognized Local Tradition Marriage is Entitle to Soldiers Pension]] (2112):* examined whether Stacy Jesseman, claiming a locally recognized marriage in Rome with deceased Captain Steven Woodson, was entitled to his EDF pension. Although she presented marriage certificates, church records, affidavits, and DNA reports as evidence, the defense challenged her identity based on physical alterations and discrepancies in historical records. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the EDF, citing the lack of a clear federal definition of “spouse” in the military code, and fined Jesseman for defrauding the EDF. - *United Federation of Earth V. Killer Karrens (2123)*: This case found that the Federation Government in the form police did have the right to infringe on Free Expression if the expression in question rose to the level of a direct threat or call for action. - _Roger Kattenfeld V. Brewing Theas (2125):_ This case questioned in a small city employer that was owned by a Federation citizen, and employed Federation citizens, and regularly paid its employee's well above average market rates for people in similar positions in the highly sought after currency of agricultural credits. Roger sued that Brewing Theas failed to provide employee's food. Brewing Thea's countered that they paid their employee's well enough to not require providing providing food. The food obligation was required of those whom the Federation classified as 'Patricians', which Kevin Thomasson, the owner of Brewing Theas was technically classified as. - The Second Supreme Court of the First Federation found that Kevin paid his employee's well above market rate in a highly in demand currency, while the employee's resided in a major urban center with numerous nearby low cost food options, thus functionally fulfilled the Federation Citizens right to food. - *Federation V. Citizens of Classarts (2137):* This foundational legal case set long lasting precedent that the Federation would tolerate and allow a two-tier citizenship system, so long as Federeal tier was not exclusionary. Thus one could be a citizen of their world or province and the Federation. - The case also found that the Federation could not strip a person of their Federation citizenship, that all people born in the Federation had Federation citizenship, and anyone born to a Federation citizenship having parent would have Federation citizenship. - The court also ruled that it was outside the scope of the Federal government to legislate or rule on citizenship of non Federal entities. - *Jeffer Chancot V. Count Francis Stevepot (5628)*: This case found that a person in a position of power, such as a Count, cannot falsely accuse a person of being of a heinous or nefarious sort, like that of a pirate or pillager. - _The Common People V. Sovereignty of Mishra_ (8362): This ruling established that no Sovereignty could without citizenship rights from those who had lived in that sovereignty exclusively for a long period of time, had paid taxes in that sovereignty, and had established social, economic, religious, and fraternal associations were had citizenship by simple right. - _Eklords V. House of Lords (12121):_ This ruling established that Eklords and another's with a great degree of mobility or capital could not be constrained by the House of Lords in a variety of areas. Most notable here is that Eklords and other prominent members were established to have a special category of Federation citizenship which was established to allow for easier or lighter conditions for citizenship, due to necessary concerns of business which under normal scrutiny may appear unjust but in truth were wholly legitimate and necessary. - *Sovereignties of Lobato De Faria & Van Aert V. Sovereignties of Wong & Pratcshler (12632):* This case revived _Federation V. Citizens of Classarts (2137)_ in Federation Law. The case was centred on two questions: first: was there a pan-Federation Citizenship, and second: could the House of Lords create rules governing Citizenship of all Sovereignties within the Federation. - In ruling on the first issue, the Supreme Court of the Second Federation declared that there was a pan-Federation citizenship. However, contravening _Federation V. Citizens of Classarts (2137)_ through extensive Second Federation law, both precedential and statutory, it was well established that the pan-Federation citizenship status which did exist was an exclusive status, held only by Lords, the D.A.M., and those working for the senate, whether as Senators or simple functionaries of the Senate, acting as Federal Government inspectors. - In ruling on the second issue, the Supreme Court of the Second Federation found that _Federation V. Citizens of Classarts (2137)_ still held precedential validity with its findings that it was outside the bounds of the Federal Government, whether the Senate or the House of Lords, to set citizenship rules for non-Federal Government entities. - The result of this ruling was that Sovereignties were allowed to set their citizenship rules, and the Federal Government was allowed to set its own, separate and exclusionary citizenship rules. - *Sovereignty of the United Federation of Earth V. Sovereignties of Wong & Pratcshler (13632):* This case overturned some of the precedent set in *Sovereignties of Lobato De Faria & Van Aert V. Sovereignties of Wong & Pratcshler (12632)*. It was brought by the Newly formed Sovereignty of the United Federation of Earth (the UFE or Federal Government) against the two sovereignties with the most oppressive and limiting citizenship laws. The Federal Government arguing that it was immoral to allow these laws to exist in the Federation, the Sovereignties arguing that it was their right to set their citizenship laws as they wanted. - The Supreme Court found that the immoral nature of *Sovereignties of Lobato De Faria & Van Aert V. Sovereignties of Wong & Pratcshler (12632)* lay in allowing an exclusive Federation citizenship, and reinstated the ruling found in _Federation V. Citizens of Classarts (2137)_ overturned in *Sovereignties of Lobato De Faria & Van Aert V. Sovereignties of Wong & Pratcshler (12632)* regarding the obligation of the Federal Government to grant citizenship to all people living under in the Sovereignty of the United Federation of Earth. - However, equally in line with _Federation V. Citizens of Classarts (2137)_ and _Sovereignties of Lobato De Faria & Van Aert V. Sovereignties of Wong & Pratcshler (12632)_ the Supreme Court upheld that the Federal Government, neither in the Senate, nor the Courts, neither the Commons, nor the Lords could legislate for a Sovereignty what its citizenship rules would be. The court argued that it was out of this inability that the Federal Government had an obligation to extend Federal Citizenship to all people living within its area of Control, that the Federal Government had an obligation to its Citizens to find them a Sovereignty which would grant them citizenship if their birth sovereignty rejected them in a legally valid manner, but granted the Federal Government a right to increase taxes to cover the costs of administering this system, with the right to levy the tax most heavily on the lords of those Sovereignties which can be shown to produce the most burden on the system. - *Sovereignty of the United Federation of Earth V. Sovereignties of Wong & Pratcshler (13632):* To show that Sovereignties had the right to set their own citizenship laws. - [[Dispute Over Lord Assaulting Store Clerk | Tim Starman V. Lord Jackson Sutton (19237)]]: The case of Tim Starman V. Lord Jackson Sutton (Case Number SOE-19237-029821287) was heard by the Supreme Court of the Sovereignty of Earth within the United Federation of Earth in the year 19237. This case examined the question of whether a Lord's social standing granted them special privileges, specifically regarding the concept of purchasing goods on credit based on their "honor." The plaintiff, Tim Starman, alleged that Lord Jackson Sutton assaulted him after he refused to accept the Lord's "honor" as a guarantee of future payment for goods. The court, after a thorough review of statutory law and precedent, found no legal basis for a "Lordly right" to purchase goods on credit based solely on their honor. Furthermore, the court determined that Lord Sutton's actions constituted assault and attempted fraud. The court ruled in favor of Mr. Starman, rejecting the defendant's argument that a Lord's word held greater weight than a commoner's. This case established a significant precedent, reinforcing the principle of equality before the law within the Federation, regardless of social standing or nobility. The court's decision affirmed that Lords do not possess special privileges exempting them from legal consequences for criminal actions or contractual violations. This ruling serves as a cornerstone of Federation jurisprudence, ensuring that all citizens are subject to the same laws and standards of justice. - 23821 case *Witchers of Kaer Conas V. United Federation of Earth*, in which the Witchers successfully argued that all religious organisations which are of a certain size deserve the right to form a unified Order for the sake of lobbying the Federal Government, and that the prohibition of this was tantamount to the continued support for the suppression of religious minorities in the Federation, as well as the state continuing to endorse aristocratic and feudal norms over popular and democratic norms. - _Chase Rogers V. Marcell Frigod (26993)_: This case found that state retribution & more importantly legal protection was also not afforded to those uttering offensive, libel, spurious, or hateful speech. - *Parents Again Porn V. All-Feed-Data (31829)*: This case found that data providers and network operates and content providers have a right to choose the content offered on their platforms, and can not be obligated by outside forces, even with implicit or explciit state backing, to police content outside of the manner specified by law. - - [[Dispute Between Pan-Federation Citizenship & Sovereignty-Citizenship in Milky Way|Nyman Sovereignty V. Bajus 52703]]: This case, Nyman Sovereignty V. Bajus (Case Number FE-52703-10827), heard by the Supreme Court of the United Federation of Earth in the year 52703, examined the conflict between pan-Federation citizenship and sovereignty-specific citizenship. Robert Bajus, a Federation citizen residing in the Nyman Sovereignty for 122 years, alleged that the Sovereignty's refusal to grant him citizenship, thereby preventing him from running for political office, violated his Federation rights. The court upheld the Sovereignty's right to set its own citizenship standards, citing the "unwritten charter" and precedent set in Sovereignties of Lobato De Faria & Van Aert V. Sovereignties of Wong & Pratcshler (12632). However, Chief Justice Pawluk-Dickinson also opined that the House of Lords, responsible for Sovereign Charters, must ensure those Charters align with Federation law, suggesting a potential avenue for future legal challenges. The court ultimately ruled in favor of Nyman Sovereignty, finding that their denial of Mr. Bajus's citizenship, based on evidence of his continued association with criminal elements, was justified. This case established the principle that while pan-Federation citizenship exists, individual Sovereignties retain significant autonomy in determining their own citizenship criteria, provided they do not conflict with established Federation law. - _Nyman V. Micky Davis (52703)_: Ruled on only days before this trial, the case cited numerous long standing statutory rights within the Nyman Sovereignty regarding with-holding citizenship. - _Jessica Albez V. Gripping Media Now Inc. (61237):_ This case found that hateful and slanderous rhetoric published by major media outlets could be forced to be taken down via court order. - _D.A.M. Belfont of The Federation of Earth's Dependent Dominion of Cyrocks' Attorney General V. Dubble Mining Bubbles (66782)_: This case, argued before the supreme court of Cyrocks, found that an employer who's work contract was signed invoking **House of Business Company Rights Act (53121) s. 2.5** retained the right to dismiss employee's operating under such a work contract if the piecemeal work was no longer large enough to justify the operations existence, or other circumstances made such work no longer viable at such a time. The employer enacting this right was found to have an obligation to provide transport to employed piecemeal workers if their place of employement did not have a Trade Volitity Index of 4.0 or more - that is, if the place of employment did not at least have one ship arriving a week. - _Walter Charmichle V. Scarlett Communications (67458)_: This case found that data feed providers such as Scarlett Communications cannot be obligated by the Federation Government through law, through the executive, or most importantly through the courts and legal system, to take any particular action. - *DistComm v. NewNode Inc. (67839)*: This case found that Network Infrastructure Providers such as NewNode Inc. do not have the Right to Police content if the provider is part of a House of Business within the Federation, as such an action would violate **Sec. 5.2 of the 66201 Bill of Rights**. - *Hannah Noonana V. Cristi's Coffee (68325):* This case ruled in the same Soverignty found that it did not Violate Ms. Noonana's right to food subsistence for Cristi's coffee to no longer provide free lunch in the employee breakroom. It upheld the long standing federation precedent first established in _Roger Kattenfeld V. Brewing Thea's (2125)_ that so long as the employer pays' their employee's a wage on which life can be sustained based on fair market rates, the employer was not themselves obligated to fulfil the Federations Fundamental right to food. - [[Dispute over Mining Workers Contract Violation 68327 | Frillus Miners Union V. Frillus Mining Company (68327)]] 8.3_: "The court accepts the Defendant's argument that employee's were paid at fair market rates, and that the availability of the commercial replicator, as well as the lack of evidence of the necessity of food from the plaintiff, demonstrate sufficient grounds for the defendants' food policy. and that the Defendant was inline with standard market practices with regard to charges to employee's." & _8.4_: "The court found that the actions of the Company did not rise to the level of violating base rights to food. The evidence presented of employee's being food from the commercial replicator, and the Defendant's statement, backed by the lack of evidence to disprove it, that had any employee been starving, the Defendant would have provided food, all demonstrate a sufficient ability to access food that the court believes this employment contract violation cannot be thought to rise to a level of total abrogation." - [[Dispute over Mining Workers Contract Violation 68362 | True Miners' of the Federation V. Federal Galactic Mining Corp. 68362]]: In the year 68362, the Supreme Court of the Dominion of Taharah, within the United Federation of Earth, heard the case of True Miners' of the Federation V. Federal Galactic Mining Corp.. This case centered around the question of whether the Federal Galactic Mining Corp. had violated its employees' unwritten right to food by not providing sufficient wages to purchase food from the outpost's commercial replicator during a temporary work stoppage caused by a broken mining drone. The plaintiff, True Miners' of the Federation, represented by recent law school graduate Kendra Alton, argued that the company's actions violated the workers' right to subsistence food as guaranteed by the Fourth Federation's Second Bill of Rights (66201) 5.5. However, the defendant, Federal Galactic Mining Corp., represented pro bono by expert corporate lawyer Dylan Dyson, successfully argued that the company's actions did not constitute a violation of the unwritten right to food. The court, relying on precedent set in Frilus Miners Union V. Frillus Mining Company (68327), found that the availability of a commercial replicator and the company's willingness to provide subsistence rations if necessary demonstrated that workers had sufficient access to food. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendant, criticizing Alton's legal arguments as incomprehensible and based on a rhetorical, rather than legal, understanding of the Unwritten Charter. This case established an important precedent, clarifying that demonstrating a violation of the unwritten right to food requires substantial evidence of actual food deprivation and cannot be based solely on allegations of low wages or temporary work stoppages. - *FedChat Comm. V. Epson Canaday (74837):* Found that while Federation Citizens have a right to Free Expression, the precedent first set in *Parents Again Porn V. All-Feed-Data (31829)* still held, content providers maintained as part of their Right to Free Expression the ability to choose what expression to amplify on their platforms. This overturned what Chief Justice Dan Orwell described as "the stranglehold *DistComm v. NewNode Inc. (67839)* placed on service providers." - The interpretation was loosened to require that no House of Parliament, nor the House of Lords, nor by order of the President nor D.A.M. could make a law requiring how anyone in the Federation chose to expression themselves, and that under the previous interpretation of *DistComm v. NewNode Inc. (67839)* the Supreme Court had effectively legislated what Network Infrastructure Providers - and had over time expanded to all network operators and members whos' company's were part of the House of Business - could or could not say, without even having passed the law through the proper channels. - *D.A.M Pawluk V. Josh Rogat (81607):* This case found that in accordance with long standing Federation laws regarding a right to Freedom of Speech or Expression, such a right must be conducted under adequate pseudonyms and proper precautions of anonymity, or else the speaker is liable for any non-properly obscured speech which is found to offend, hurt, or be liable, false, or hateful in intent, fact, or interpretation. - _Jason Beck V. Scarlett Communications (82123):_ This case overturned part of _Walter Charmichle V. Scarlett Communications (67458)_ by establishing that Federation Citizens, as part of their right to Freedom of Expression with appropriate forms, must have the ability to express themselves with these forms made available. Furthermore data feed providers were found to have an obligation to allow access to their service to all citizens who have the ability to connect to them if they so choose. This does not prevent charging charging customers higher fee's to access tool's necessary to shroud oneself in the garb necessary to post under the conditions required, only that such tool's must be available. - [[Dispute over Freedom of Speech on Federation DataFeeds| Dylan Hughs V. Danial Balcaen & Scarlett Communications Inc. (83374)]]: In the year 83374, the Supreme Court of the Dependent Dominion Court of Canaca, located within the Federation, heard the case of Dylan Hughs V. Danial Balcaen & Scarlett Communications Inc. (Case Number: DC-83374-120712). This case examined the balance between an individual's right to freedom of expression on data-feeds and a data-feed provider's right to control content on its platform. The plaintiff, Dylan Hughs, represented by attorney Bryanna Addams, argued that his right to free speech, protected by the 83370 Bill of Rights Section 2.1, allowed him to post offensive or insulting content on Scarlett Communications' data-feed, even if it caused harm to other users. The defendant, Danial Balcaen, represented by attorney Brie Beaudette, claimed that Mr. Hughs' posts constituted hateful rhetoric and violated his right to safety. The court ruled in favor of Mr. Hughs, affirming that Federation citizens do not have a right to protection from offensive or hateful speech, as long as it constitutes the free and honest expression of a fellow citizen. The court argued that such protection would violate the 83370 Bill of Rights and create a chilling effect on free expression. However, the court also upheld Scarlett Communications' right to control content on its platform, citing long-standing Federation precedent. This case established a crucial precedent, reinforcing the Federation's commitment to freedom of speech while acknowledging the complexities of balancing this right with the need to moderate online content. The court's decision clarified that, within the Federation, the right to free speech prevails over the right to be protected from potentially offensive or hurtful expressions, emphasizing the importance of open dialogue and robust debate in a democratic society.