View a Hearing

Appeals Court

Docket: AC-12
Status: Ruled on by a Court

agumobrown

Attorney: BoolinJones

vs.

Department of Justice

Attorney: ICEMAN.

Overview
  • Type of Hearing: Appeal
  • Submitted: 2 months ago (21/Mar/2026 05:39:36 PM UTC)
  • Hearing Location:
  • Hearing Verdict:
  • Date Scheduled:
  • Time Scheduled:
Information
Appeal Type
Hiring Blacklist
Explain why your appeal should be successful
I believe my appeal should be successful because my termination and blacklist placement did not follow the disciplinary procedures required under White House law, and the punishment was disproportionate to the situation. I acted in good faith, using a previous BGC as a structural template with the intention of updating it fully for the White House. This was a correctable mistake, not misconduct, and I immediately offered to redo all BGCs from scratch. No warning or strike was issued, despite the Code of Conduct Act 2025 requiring a clear, step‑by‑step process before termination. Additionally, no law in the Crimes Act or Defense Act defines my actions as an offense. For these reasons, the decision was excessive, procedurally incorrect, and should be reconsidered.
Justification for the Action you're appealing
My termination and blacklist placement did not comply with the Code of Conduct Act 2025, which mandates a progressive disciplinary process: first a warning, then strikes, and only after repeated offenses a firing. I received none of these steps. “Plagiarism of classified documents” is not a crime under the Crimes Act 2025, and my actions do not fall under any offense in the Defense Act 2025. The only possible category is “Negligence of Duties,” a Class B offense that does not mandate firing or blacklisting. Because the disciplinary process was skipped and the punishment was disproportionate, the decision meets the definition of Unfair Punishment under the Crimes Act 2025. Therefore, the action taken against me was not legally justified and should be overturned.
Court Opinion

Written by dreckly on 27/May/2026 03:19:00 PM UTC

Concerning the matter of AC-12 - AgumoBrown req. removal from the Executive Branch’s Hiring Blacklist.

Justices Presiding:
Chief Justice dreckly
Deputy Chief Justice Kelpti
Senior Associate Justice Faaaaiiitthh
Associate Justices saintpaulbb & TaroBubbleTea


Verdict

Following the proceedings, the justices voted as follows:

In favour of removal: 5

Against removal: 0


Majority Opinion

Following the opening statement from the counsel for the respondent which stated that they did not wish to challenge the removal of the appellant from the hiring blacklist upon which he had been placed and that the position of the respondant is that the appellant should be removed from the hiring blacklist, alongside the evidence submitted by the counsel for the appellant which demonstrated a lack of warnings logged prior to the removal and blacklisting of the appellant.

Consideration was also given to the appellant’s previous good character and dedication to this Habbo White House, which he demonstrated through his response to the question posed to him.

Given the facts above, the opinion of the justices in this case, feel that there can be no other outcome in this case than the removal of the appellant from the Executive Branch’s Hiring Blacklist.