Court of Petty Appeals: Ex Parte Law Weekly

Ex parte Law Weekly
76 U.Va 17 (2025)

Dᴇᴍɪᴛʀʏ, C.J. delivers the opinion of the court, in which Wᴜ, Bᴇʀᴋʟɪᴄʜ, Bᴇᴄᴋᴇʀ, and Vᴀɴɢᴇʀ., JJ., join. Aʟʟᴀʀᴅ, C.J. emeritus, dissents. 

Dᴇᴍɪᴛʀʏ, C.J., delivering the opinion of the Court.

I

This proceeding before the Court of Petty Appeals addresses a multifaceted pattern of administrative mismanagement and subversive maneuvering under the regime of C.J. Allard. In an era when digital stewardship is paramount, Justice Allard’s conduct has been marked not only by glaring oversights but also by an unwavering commitment to a philosophy of perpetual rule. His insistence that “retirement isn’t in our five-year plan”—echoing the refrain of revolutionaries who maintain that the revolution is incomplete until every post is permanently occupied—speaks to an ideological rigidity influenced by a deep-seated admiration for communist tenets, particularly those espoused by the tyrannical Communist dictator Mao Zedong.

“Relinquishment of power is a bourgeois concept”

II

Depositions reveal that the former-C.J. Allard has long embraced the notion that relinquishing power is a concept best left to those who lack revolutionary fervor. His rhetorical stance suggests that in the spirit of the great Mao, true leadership is an unending mission—a belief that has manifested in a staunch refusal to cede authority. This belief was forecasted as early as his own ascension into power, one year ago. 

 This ideological posture, while couched in the language of eternal commitment, has, in practice, resulted in an environment where accountability is routinely deferred in favor of ideological posturing. And more worryingly, it has resulted in an environment that supports his posting of memes like this in the groupchat: 

Further compounding the matter are revelations that Allard has actively sought to manipulate the newly formed Executive Board, proffering threats to contest any results unless re-elected EIC. 

Evidence also indicates that he has attempted to orchestrate a covert campaign—even going so far as to reach out to incoming 1Ls and leveraging internal alliances—to engineer a long-con coup aimed at toppling the rightful administration. 

In this effort, Allard appears determined to maintain his influence by fomenting dissent within the Board, seeking to overturn established protocols and reinsert his autocratic methods into the heart of our digital governance. 

III

This is not a new tactic. Parallel to his ideological and manipulative endeavors, Allard’s record of digital mismanagement remains incontrovertible. Notably, his failure to appropriately acknowledge International Women’s Day—instead saying to the two female editorial board members (Features Editor Ashanti Jones ’26 and then-Production Editor Nicky Demitry ’26), “Oh, it’s like, you guys’ week or something, right?”—has been deemed a serious breach of cultural and administrative duty. Moreover, a momentary “lapse in control” over our digital domain resulted in our premier landing page being surreptitiously transformed into a gambling advertisement. Whether that was truly accidental or indicative of Allard’s subconscious plans for the future of the Law Weekly, we simply cannot say. Despite Allard’s selfless work to complete a total overhaul of the Law Weekly website, resulting in a sleek and elegant new viewing experience on the World Wide Web, we find that these episodes, though transient, have significantly eroded user trust and tarnished our online reputation. 

For the reasons set forth herein, this Court finds that Allard’s conduct—marked by an unyielding commitment to an outdated ideological framework, a series of manipulative efforts aimed at subverting rightful leadership, and a cascade of digital mismanagement errors—demands decisive corrective action. Accordingly, a writ of mandamus is hereby issued, directing the immediate restoration of all compromised systems and the implementation of internal reforms to depose the current regime under C.J. Allard’s leadership.

It is so ordered.

Bᴇʀᴋʟɪᴄʜ, J., concurring. 

Understanding the female sex to be an essential part of the revolutionary effort, the illustrious chairman Mao Zedong said “women hold up half the sky.” Our dearest Chief Justice Emeritus forgets this, and then himself. He has lost the mandate of heaven, but has gained some valuable free time. Happy retirement. 

Aʟʟᴀʀᴅ, C.J. Emeritus, dissenting.

“[W]ho is going to stop me? You?” Law Weekly Editors v. Allard, 76 U.Va 21 (2024). When I concurred in Law Weekly Editors, granting myself immunity from suit, I truly believed that I had secured an enduring position as Editor-in-Chief. I so coveted this position that I was willing to sacrifice this organization’s best interests for my own benefit. Does this fly in the face of my avowed commitment to this paper’s best interests? Yes. Will that prevent me from dissenting? No.

“Chief Justice” Demitry, in a Chiang Kai-shek-esque fashion, attempts to overthrow me for my supposed Maoist proclivities. Nothing could be further from the truth. While I may own ironic coasters that say “毛主席万岁,” and I did discuss my plans to create a cult of personality among the 1L editors in the hopes of launching a Law Weekly cultural revolution to maintain my grasp on power, this was all just part of the bit™.

The majority attempts to oust me for such legally-protected whimsy. See Gay Section H Law Weekly Staff v. Lake, 75 U.Va 16 (2023) (Lake, C.J., concurring) (“There is nothing more vital to the exercise of justice than committing to the bit.”). I will not be disposed of so easily. I am told by my closest advisor that I can apply as an LL.M. student and return to the Law School next year, reprising my position as Editor-in-Chief. Non-consecutive terms are in vogue among strongmen, so I am strongly considering this option.

On the other hand, my tenure, like Mao’s, has admittedly been… troubled. See In re Law Weekly Cybersecurity Disaster, 77 U.Va 13 (2025) (suing Virginia Law Weekly Co., Ltd. for my misrepresentations to shareholders and mismanagement of the Law Weekly website); Commonwealth v. Allard, 77 U.Va 11 (2024) (ordering me to be extradited to Virginia); Production Editors of the Virginia Law Weekly v. The Patriarchy®, 76 U.Va 18 (2024) (citing me erroneously referring to Women’s History Month as “International Women’s Month”).

Perhaps then, it is best that I shall soon slip into an inevitable graduation… All good things must come to an end. And writing for the Law Weekly and this Court has been one of the greatest pleasures of my brief three years at this Law School.

As the great Chairman once said, “Classes struggle, some classes triumph, others are eliminated. Such is history.” Outmaneuvered by the deft Chief Justice Demitry, I have lost this struggle. But I am hopeful that history will nonetheless remember me kindly. And if not history, then maybe at least some of the 1Ls.

I concur with the majority’s judgment. It is my time. I must leave this paper in the able hands of new leadership. But! I am still an ornery bastard. For that reason alone, I respectfully dissent.