Community v.

Rohsen
Case Summary

Style: Community v. Rohsen

International Court of Justice (November 12, 2020)

Procedural History: At a preliminary hearing, the Court of Justice has held a debate
period between the parties for the Court to better understand the argument the parties
have made. The Court has found third Counts of Trial Tampering and a single count of
Jury Tampering. The defendant is in contempt of court.

Issue: A) Should the Court allow Mr. Rohsen to reenter the United Nations and
MRA Community?

B) Whether the People (the Community) have reasonable suspicion to

believe that Rohsen is unfit to for the community and is in the state of mind
of incompetent in the act of admitting guilty and hate speech and promoting
Nazism which is highly denounced by the general society thereof.
Holding: A) The Spain v. Finland case has been resurfaced before the Court. Which
determined that the previous case mentions “fair roleplay”. The idea of
“fair roleplay” has cause the fairness of Community to operate to be
obstructed and the defendant has history of obstruction of justice. Also,
whilst obstructing the fairness of roleplay the Court has determined that the
counterfeit money made the Finland Government will be rendered void so
thereto rendering Spanish Government (Lexian Gov.) a billion-dollar loss.
Spain can contact the United Nations General Assembly for can spend one
billion dollars in reparations on the behalf of the Finland Government. The
United Nations General Assembly may withdraw one billion-dollars from
the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund.
B) Defendant has been found by the Court to have. Three counts of
violating Court order and disobeying the order in the Court. One count of
Jury Tampering and one Obstruction of Justice. The Court interprets that
Rendering the precedent that anyone that acts on “Indecent Behaviour” or
“Hate Speech” or promoting racist ideas warrants a permanent ban or
expulsion.
Rules: A) The situation analysis of the matter that Mr. Rohsen is unfit and
insufficient for the MRA Community and the United Nations. The International
Court of Justice determines that persons “reasonable stability” is the act of the
person in question actively going against rules of law provided by the
Constitution, Court Statute, MS Code and the present Court. Anyone who is not
“reasonably stable” to follow the rules the MRA Communities; Constitution, ICJ
Statute, Court Proceeding, Court Orders, and the MS Code.
B) The Court determines that it is justified that Mr. Asjborn Rohsen, is
unfit for there society thereof. The Court will rule that a person whomever it may
concern that a person who is “reasonable instable” to fit within a the MRA
Community and blatantly disregards the integrity and the competent of the rules
they are to abide by should not be apart of said community. Mr. Rohsen has been
found guilty by the Court with overwhelming evidence from the prosecution
regarding the person thereof. The Court as decided and ruled that a permanent
expulsion and this case final no appeals or plea deals shall be made unless
approved for a plea deal by two-thirds majority vote by the indictment and
criminal investigation committee.

Reasoning: A) The Court relies on statutory definitions from MRA Communities law,
the code and United Nations Resolutions.

As the Court has found nothing regarding indecent behaviour, reasonable

instability and reasonable stability. As the nor does it justify the correct
punishment for one who is unfit for the community and should be removed from
both the United Nations and the MRA.

B) The Court applies it definition of reasonable stability and instability for

the community as whole and the United Nations. This new case law will be
defined and by the Court to promptly set precedent for the people whom who need
to be removed according with law and fair justification.

Facts:
• Defendants actions during court proceeding were proven to be indecent
behaviour.
• Defendants did not have enough evidence to back his argument.
• Defendant defied Court Order to speak with a juror and tamper with the
trial.
Legal Definitions:
a) Reasonable Stability: A person who case the mental competence to follow the rule
justly and fairly.

b) Reasonable Instability: A person who lack mental competence to follow the rules
justly and fairly.

c) Indecent Behaviour: The behaviour of person that is irregular and irrational. An

act of person violating rules and not following the public order.