IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CRIMINAL ACTION
The Crown
Prosecution
v.
Stratton LLC, Emmet99, Maelzarun, Mr_GrapeJelly, Talion77
Defendants
NOTE: Evidence is hard to read because it is HTML files in PDF files. Defense has excerpted it and has reuploaded P-015 here because it is not in the Prosecution's evidence folder.
REPLY TO RESPONSE TO ENTREATY TO DISMISS
AGRARI, TALION & PARTNERS SCHEMED TO DEFRAUD EMMET AND STRATTON LLC
Before June 6th, pricelessAgrari and FTLCEO furnished the Redmont Department of Justice with confidential information about Stratton to attempt to induce a criminal investigation against Emmet and Stratton LLC. (
P-015, page 13;
D-007, page 2, 3)
They and Talion77 founded AGRARI, TALION & PARTNERS LLC ("AGRARI") specifically to "defend" Emmet and Stratton LLC from the consequences they anticipated from the investigation they provoked, as well as a new Alexandrian law that had been written specifically to target their client. As they had intended, they were immediately retained as counsel. (
D-011)
The law passed, halting Stratton's business. After Stratton had already stopped all conduct enjoined by the law, pricelessAgrari contacted ibney0, the law's author and prosecutor in this case, with screenshots of their clients' privileged discussions about how to handle the new legislation -- casting that discussion as, itself, criminal. (
P-015, pages 15, 16, 17, 31)
ibney0 agreed that those were crimes and filed this case, naming other members of Stratton and Emmet's defense team as defendants.
Afraid of being fined, AGRARI's other staff then rushed to ibney0 for non-prosecution deals. The Crown took advantage of this, securing server logs from paralegal FTLCEO (
D-007, June 22nd) and an agreement to testify from named partner Talion77. (
D-016, June 30th)
WHEN COUNSEL SCHEMES WITH THE PROSECUTION TO UNDERMINE THEIR OWN CLIENT, THE CLIENT HAS NO REAL LEGAL REPRESENTATION
Crown takes the stance that no conflict of interest existed, and if it did, the Crown didn't know about it, and if the Crown did know about it, it wasn't material, and if it was, that's no big deal, because conflicts of interest are allowed as long as they're not unfairly prejudicial.
Crown additionally asserts that Defendants are not inherently barred from testifying against other Defendants, but might be if the testimony is unfairly prejudicial.
These statements are unresponsive. The issue has nothing to do with prejudice or defendants' rights to testify against each other, and indeed ibney0 can flip defendants against each other all he wants so long as he is only working with defendants. The issue is that these are Emmet's
counsel, who had flipped on him weeks before the trial.
When counsel conspires to sabotage their client's defense behind their client's back, that client is completely unrepresented. Normally, an unrepresented defendant would hire a lawyer or request a public defender, but in this case, the defendant did not know that they were unrepresented. AGRARI, purporting to provide legal representation for some of the defendants in this case, instead provided additional services to the prosecution without disclosing this role or extricating themselves from their duty to faithfully represent Stratton and Emmet.
AGRARI's June 11th statement (in entry
#15 in this case) that they are representing Stratton is thus false, and senior officers of AGRARI knew it was false at the time their agent, MJ43, made that statement. Crown cannot argue that it did not know pricelessAgrari and Talion77 were staff of AGRARI, TALION, & PARTNERS LLC because the firm is named after them. Additionally, Talion77 directly discussed this with Prosecutor Ibney0 (
D-016, June 24).
THE CASE IS UNFAIR AND SHOULD BE DISMISSED
Prosecutor Ibney0, representing the Crown, knew of AGRARI's conflict of interest and chose to benefit from it, keeping this information from the Court and from all defendants -- including defendants who had no genuine counsel and from the Public Defender -- until compelled during discovery. This fundamentally violates the
Criminal Code and Procedure Act, part 14(1), by denying defendants Stratton and Emmet their right to legal representation at "all critical stages of the legal process" (emphasis added).
Stratton was unrepresented during subpoena, discovery, and questioning. These critical information-disclosure stages of the judicial process cannot be reversed; this bell cannot be un-rung. It is impossible for any defendant in the Stratton affair to effectively defend themselves against these charges after these critical stages have been tainted by the prosecution's knowing complicity in AGRARI's deliberate, overt acts to deprive their purported clients of their rights to representation.
Since no fair trial can be held on these matters due to the Crown's prosecutor's ratification of AGRARI's misconduct, this matter must be dismissed with prejudice with respect to all defendants. The Public Defender so entreats the court.
Nyeogmi Choi
Director, Public Defense
Kingdom of Alexandria
drive.google.com
