| General Defense v. Bleitze
|Supreme Court: 5/28/14 - 6/17/14|
|Full Case Name||General Defense v. Ryan Bleitze|
|Major Executive Bleitze's orders were unconstitutional as they were of a targeted nature, exceeded the authority of the Majorate's power, and abused the privacy of private citizens.|
|Universal Triumvirate v. Ehtya|
- "No business or citizen may conspire, negotiate, or partake in foreign commercial interactions without permission from either a treaty, the Major Executive, or the Chief Ambassador."
- "Any foreign state, individual, corporation, or non-governmental institution which is in the process of developing weapons that concern the Triumvirate shall be monitored by the Department of Intelligence."
- "No weapons shall be sold, distributed, or moved from anywhere in the jurisdiction of the Triumvirate to outside the Triumvirate, including to allies, foreign businesses, or foreign citizens."
- "All businesses, non-governmental institutions, or individuals who possess weapons in the jurisdiction of the Triumvirate shall be required to report them, the full capabilities of such, and their intent for such to the Department of Intelligence. Weapons currently in development must have stages of development (including concept, initiation, and completion) similarly reported."
These orders had a significant impact on General Defense (CEO: Aaron Ehtya) as they denied the company the ability to do business and significantly hindered the company by imposing several new restrictions as to business, mandatory reporting, and sale of their product. Ehtya responded by suing Bleitze, which the Supreme Court allowed due to the "targeted nature" of the orders. As Ehtya stated, "Major Executive Bleitze has targeted me and my business for months, and as Major Executive he has gone to extraordinary, illegal, and unconstitutional methods to hinder my enterprise."
Chief Attorney Edward Stenbach defended the Major Executive, despite having personal opposition to the Major Executive's actions, and the court agreed to hear the case (despite the fact that the Major Executive is generally afforded sovereign immunity from being tried in civil cases while in office) due to what appeared to be a targeted set of orders by the Majorate and the important subject matter and potential for precedent. The case proceedings themselves were simple, both sides gave their side of the facts, though there was little disagreement in what had happened, they just made their arguments, and then the justices immediately moved into deliberation.
The court ruled 1:1 (with Chief Justice Evantsu breaking the split towards General Defense) in favor of Aaron Ehtya and General Defense, issuing an order to revoke all of Major Executive Bleitze's Major Orders made thus far. Chief Justice Evantsu wrote:
"The court hereby finds 1:1, with myself as Chief Justice ruling by breaking the equal vote that Major Executive Bleitze acted unconstitutionally in making these orders of a targeted nature and that, as they conflict with Triumvirate law and constitutional protections for members of the Union, they were inappropriate and are to be rescinded. The abuses of privacy to Mr. Ehtya and his company are also grounds to invalidate the other orders.
All orders made by Major Executive Bleitze are to be rescinded and revoked, no longer holding weight. The Chief Attorney is instructed to update the court record for this case and indicate that the Major Orders have been invalidated.
The court will not order any payment to Mr. Ehtya or his company, nor permit any claims for legal compensation against the Major Executive. We simply order that all Major Orders made by Major Executive Bleitze be invalidated and that General Defense be permitted to proceed."
The case is an extremely famous and relevant one due to its decisive nature in the role of the government in private enterprise. It built on the rulings of Universal Triumvirate vs. Ehtya from the trimester prior and further halted the already struggling Bleitze Majorate.