Supreme Court
Docket: SC-116
Parties
saintpaulbb
Plaintiff
Attorney: saintpaulbb
VS.
xclebl
Defendant
Attorney: Seas.
Hearing Details
Type of Hearing Criminal
Hearing Location Not Scheduled
Date Scheduled Not Scheduled
Time Scheduled Not Scheduled
Submitted 8th August 2026, 20:36 PM UTC 4 weeks ago
Court Outcome Settled
Information
I'm suing xclebl for violation of the Group Badges Act 2025, specifically Part 1 Section 3 and Part 2 Section 1. The Universal badges do not stipulate that the [WH] Very Important Person Badge is eligible to be worn whilst being an employed user at the agency, nor does the Executive Branch permit users to wear this badge on their profile either. The user has been notified via whisper that the badge is incorrect, but she has failed to change it.

According to the Act, violating this act is deemed as a Class C offense.

Location: "» The White House » Pays 2c Hourly » JOBS" owned by “Praeceptor"
Date: 16:25 on 8 August 2026
Evidence
Restricted Evidence: Evidence has been submitted for this case but has not been released publicly. Only authorised personnel can view it.
Court Opinion
Written by saintpaulbb 14th August 2026, 08:48 AM UTC
Settlement Summary

SC-116 was resolved through the mandatory settlement process pursuant to Part 8, Section 3 of the Prosecution Act 2025.

The Defendant, xclebl, agreed to enter a guilty plea in relation to the alleged violation of the Group Badges Act 2025. Following negotiations between the parties, a settlement was reached whereby a formal warning will be recorded on the Defendant’s EE:DB profile in lieu of further court proceedings.

As the parties voluntarily reached a mutual agreement, the matter was resolved without the need for a hearing. The settlement is binding upon both parties and the case is now closed.

Issued by:
notsyam
Solicitor General
Office of the Solicitor General