by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics


Imperial High Court Board



[+] Advanced...





Your change has been seen and has been deemed acceptable by the court. Thus, your evidence has been lodged and may now be used during the trial.

With that, the pretrial phase is now over. We will now move to the motioning phase. The defense and the prosecution have two days to review each other's evidence and motion to contest any statement that is inarguably and directly contrary to the established facts of the case.

If the defense and prosecution cannot find any clear denial of fact in the opposing cases, they may request that this motioning phase be abbreviated so that we may finally begin the trial.


I must apologize. I forgot to tag you to announce the beginning of the motion phase. Although I have already overextended this motion phase due to distraction by real-life obligations, I am willing to extend the motion phase for another 18 hours from now due to my oversight. I ask that you declare any motions to contest evidence within that time.

Seeing a lack of motions contesting the evidence, we will now properly begin the trial.


Do you swear that any statements you make from this point forward are the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth as you know it?

In the name of God, I do.

Very well.

Em-en-eye, Mukolayiv, please give your opening statement.

Your honor.
The College of Arms already occupies a niche role in the culture of the empire, yet is already an integral part of the identity of our region and we plan on doubling down further on our cultural impact by planning events of different kinds.

We have already been rendered powerless once by imperial decree and will not sit idly by as our heraldic privileges are trampled upon in partisan purposes.

As L.R 46 clearly states "The College of Arms shall be established as the sole and supreme heraldic and vexillological authority of the New Western Empire".
This undeniably establishes the College of Arms' position of authority and guidance regarding undeniable heraldic symbols such as a lion rampant.

The College of Arms has no issue with the usage of symbols and imagery that do not adhere to the strict and unrelenting heraldic principles as seen in for example the Citizens Party's depiction of an owl which breaks heraldic guidelines regarding depictions of avians and is therefore not a heraldic symbol. Nor would we have an issue with imagery that is very common outside of heraldry as long as they are not used in situations and contexts clearly made to made mimic heraldic imagery.
RDU have however, despite numerous warnings after the passage of the bill continued misuse heraldic imagery for political purposes, something that goes against the very foundation of the College of Arms' will to create a unified regional image irrespective of political alignment.

The College of Arms would therefore be glad to carry out our duties and help RDU create a logo that does not interfere with our heraldic practices and that offer extends to every citizen of our beloved region and beyond.

The art of heraldry is a beautiful one and should be a unifying force, not one used for partisan agendas.

Palancia, please give your opening statement.

Your honor.

The Royalist Democratic Union is in no way violating LR 46. It is true that in LR 46 that the College of Arms is established as the sole and supreme heraldic and vexillological authority, however, they are missing a major key fact in their claims: The Royalist Democratic Union already had the logo in use before the College of Arms was even an established institution. Quite frankly, that logo has been in use by the Royalist Democratic Union since September of 2020. The plaintiffs from the College of Arms are only making a big deal out of it now because we changed our Discord server icon to a logo that we already had, which is the Lion logo which they claim is under their heraldic authority.

In our view, LR 46 is completely irrelevant in this case when you consider the historical usage of the logo in question. We at RDU had the logo first, and we think the College of Arms only brought forth this case so they can test how far their "authority" reaches in the New Western Empire.

It is also in our view that the College of Arms has no authority besides creating arms for people of nobility and protecting the misuse of those arms by the general public.

Now it is interesting what the College of Arms is actually suing me for: Heraldic fraud. What's interesting about this is that LR 46 clearly states in Article 3, Section 2: "Heraldic fraud shall be made a criminal offense, and will be defined as the illegal or improper usage of one's arms, falling under the provision of LR 3 that is Fraud."

Your honor, this claim is completely false as we at RDU are in no way illegally nor improperly using one's arms. Now if the plaintiff can provide such evidence of RDU misusing one's arms, they should bring it forward.

Now, I will present to you direct quotes from the plaintiff and the Consul regarding this case from February 9th, 2021.

Muko: "Anyway, MNI, want to sue RDU?"

MNI: "Of course."

Muko: "They still have a heraldic supporter on their logo."

Texas: "RDU for copyright?"

Muko: "Yes, heraldic fraud."

Texas: "Lol. Give the court hell."

Muko: "The court needs to do something."

Texas: "Or else I will."

Muko: "And me and MNI want to have some fun."

Your honor, as you can see, the plaintiff seems like it brought forth this case in a joking matter. Their claim of heraldic fraud is misleading as they clearly don't understand that the RDU logo had been in use since September. September was a time when the College of Arms didn't exist and had no proclaimed authority via LR 46.

Your honor, with the understanding of historical usage, RDU is in no way violating anything the College of Arms is claiming. And quite frankly, we at RDU see this as harassment from the College of Arms because they have nothing better to do. This case is a waste of time and I hope that when you and Justice Slov make your opinions, they will be opinions that are on the correct side of this case, which is on the side of the defendant.

Em-en-eye, please present your evidence.

The defense and the prosecution has come to a settlement with the following terms:
1. The RDU may keep their exactly logo as it is
2. The College of Arms will issue a special grant allowing RDU to use a lion rampant as a logo without expiry
3. The court affirms the authority of the College of Arms as per LR 46

Palancia Mukolayiv Salanernterthwazva

The settlement has been accepted by the court.

With that, the court will now dismiss this case due to the settlement rendering it moot.

Meeting adjourned.