JMO-0042 · The State v belmov
| Court | Imperial Prosecution Bureau · Judgment |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-06 |
| Published | JMO-0042 |
| Keywords | Not stated in the record |
| Summary | Belmov was charged under count 1.1.4 Failure to Comply for refusing a direct summons to an oath ceremony on 2 September 2026. When the convening officer ordered all leaders to join, Belmov asked for five minutes and said he was attending an army high command meeting. The officer denied that such a meeting was taking place and issued a second, direct order, and Belmov did not join until after that order. The court found that placing a rival meeting above a direct summons and holding out until told twice constituted failure to comply, while noting his conduct during the parade itself differed from the other defendants. He was found guilty and sentenced to twenty loyalty jacks and a formal reprimand was entered on his record. |
| Procedural history | Not stated in the record |
| Parties | The State: The State Defendant: belmov |
| Author | Not stated in the record |
| Last updated | 2026-09-06 |
| References in the text | None cited |
The verdict
Guilty on 1.1.4 Failure to Comply.
The sentence
Twenty loyalty jacks, and a formal reprimand entered on his record.
The written judgement
Belmov stands apart from the other four, and he stands apart because of what he did at the oath, not on the day itself. When the officer convening the parade called the leaders to the oath with the words that it was time and that all of them must join, Belmov did not join. He asked for five minutes and gave as his reason an army high command meeting. He was told there was no such meeting standing above this summons and to join now, and only then, after a second and direct order, did he comply.
That is the conduct the court punishes. A direct summons from the officer running the ceremony is not a thing a man weighs against a meeting of his own choosing and answers with a request for five minutes. Setting a rival meeting above the order, and holding out until told twice, is the failure to comply, and it is found against him.
The court has weighed that this defendant's conduct on the day of the parade itself was not the problem the others were. That is why he is not set the same course as them. He is, on the direction of command, dealt with more firmly on the point where he actually went wrong, which is the defiance of a direct order at the oath. He is given twenty loyalty jacks and a formal reprimand is entered on his record. The court chooses a real and countable punishment here, rather than a penance, precisely because the wrong was a plain refusal of an order and should be answered plainly.
An official decision of the Judicial Ministry of Octavium. The complete working file of this case, with its hearing record, is held at the Ministry.