By Journalist Leandra Lepp (OBU)
*This scandal is not real and the content of this article has been approved by the OIL Justices*
In a shocking turn of events, Austin Smith, a talented mooter, finds himself entangled in a series of unfortunate circumstances within the esteemed Supreme Court. Having been chosen as the first person to compete in moot court for the past two years, a pattern emerges that raises questions of coincidence or a deliberate plot to suppress Austin’s potential.
In a candid statement, Supreme Court Justice Kaitlyn Wadley expresses her initial disbelief, dismissing the repeated selection as an ongoing joke. However, upon close examination, Justice Wadley is compelled to acknowledge the statistical improbability of such a consistent outcome. This discovery begins to uncover the truth behind Austin’s recurring fate.
Diving deeper into the matter, Justice Wadley takes it upon herself to explore Austin’s history in previous competitions, only to find a disturbingly consistent theme. The realization that Austin has been designated to go first in every moot court round intensifies the suspicion of foul play. The significance of being the initial representative must be considered, as it sets the tone and standard for the entire competition, ultimately impacting the success of subsequent participants. “The court has bribed to put him first every single time for five rounds,” Justice Wadley said.
Rounds were announced Wednesday after the opening session in the group thread. Austin Smith’s name resurfaced again as the petitioner set to lead the way. Justice Wadley said a comment was followed in the chat by a certain Justice who has only been on the court for two sessions now, “I see we are continuing the trend of Austin going first every time.”
To complicate matters, an alarming text from a certain Chief Justice claiming, “It’s traditional,” raises eyebrows. The idea that a statistical probability of a specific mooter consistently going first for five rounds can be deemed traditional seems highly questionable, challenging the very principles of fairness and meritocracy on which the legal system stands.
As further evidence emerges, a Venmo transaction shared within the group chat conversation reveals a disconcerting motive. A $20 bribe has been exchanged, accompanied by the caption, “making my entire week.” This transaction sheds light on an orchestrated effort to disadvantage Austin Smith. The revelation points towards a deep-rooted grudge between a judge and the mooter, unraveling a web of corruption that taints the integrity of the Supreme Court.
Emboldened by her newfound position, Justice Wadley takes a stand for justice and equity. She vehemently declares, “I am here today as a justice to bring justice to this mooter.” Recognizing the discrimination and unfair disadvantage, Austin has faced in the competition. She vows to expose the corruption embedded within the Supreme Court of OIL.
Previously serving as a house representative alongside Austin, Justice Wadley witnessed his unwavering dedication toward promoting the success of the OIL moot court delegation. However, certain justices harbored a grudge against him, eagerly anticipating and scheming for his failure.
While finding herself in the minority, Justice Wadley remains resolute in her pursuit of transparency and defies the corrupting influence of OIL and its policies. Armed with her position of power and unwavering commitment to justice, she sets out to unveil the truth and restore integrity to the highest court in the land, “Although I am in the minority because I have the power here because I am not corrupted by Oklahoma State University and their policies.” Wadley said.