I have decided to rule in favour of WPLibrar2. I believe that there is sufficient proof in Stateapparatus's references to the deal to believe that he was fully aware of it and in agreement to his terms of the deal being valid after the voting period was over. I see no evidence of an explicit nullification of the deal being mentioned to WPLibrar2 before the deal was completed. The responsibility is on Stateapparatus to inform WPLibra2 before the deal was completed. To nullify the original contract based on the idea that one party did not understand it would be a dangerous precedent to set. Stateapparatus as the proposer of the deal was also completely aware of what the deal meant and by proposing it even de facto agreed to it's terms.

The court has ruled the contract's terms fulfilled. Therefore the property belongs to WPLibra2.

However I am not applying any sentence to Stateapparatus.

The court rules that Stateapparatus is not guilty of theft as he did not intentionally take another persons property as he thought it was his due to my earlier decision. The court also does not believe that Stateapparatus was intentionally trying to deceive WPlibrar2 to take the property as there is no clear and convincing evidence to support this over state simplying believing the contract was nullified when it was not.

The evidence provided for Stateapparatus committing the act of griefing does not satisfy my judgement of what is beyond reasonable doubt. Faking discord comments is a trivial action and there are no snitch logs to back this charge up.

To summarise there are no sentences against Stateapparatus and the plot belongs to WPLibrar2.