Lawsuit: In Session The Crown v. Stratton LLC, Emmet99, Maelzarun, Mr_GrapeJelly, Talion77, Case 11 (Mag. Ct., 2025)

IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

This matter involves exploitation, willful deceit, and intentional disregard for the law. On July 8th, the Criminal Code and Procedures Act received royal assent, prohibiting Stratton's predatory business model under the law. Rather than halt operations immediately, Stratton and its members engaged in a criminal conspiracy to continue breaking the law while erasing evidence, impeding an active investigation, and deliberately obstructing justice.

On May 25, 2025, Emmet99 founded Stratton LLC. The core of the company's business model was predatory currency exchanges that deliberately targeted new, inexperienced, and unsuspecting players because they could be easily exploited. Alexandria had recently launched, and for some time, this business practice was legal.

However, on June 8, 2025, A.P. 01-006, the Criminal Code and Procedures Act (or CCPA), received royal assent, legally prohibiting the conduct at issue and establishing two criminal offenses central to this case:
  • Criminal Code and Procedures Act ("CCPA") Sec. 21(3)(I)
(i) New Player Fraud - A player is guilty of new player fraud if they defraud another player, and their target was chosen based on said target's actual or perceived lack of experience in Alexandria.​
(i) Maximum Punishment: £10,000 fine and 60 minutes in jail.​
Click to expand...
  • Criminal Code and Procedures Act ("CCPA") Sec. 20(6)(f)
(f) Fraud - A player is guilty of fraud if they use deceit, falsehoods, or trickery to obtain something of value from another player.
(i) Maximum Punishment: £1,000 fine + 30 minutes in jail + restitution.​
Click to expand...

The business model Stratton operated suddenly became illegal. Despite this, Stratton and its members conspired to defy the law. On June 9, 2025, manager Maelzarun issued an order to the employees of Stratton: “Forget the law [and] keep doing work.” Stratton and its members conspired to continue operations, continue deceiving new players, and continue profiting. This directive and the subsequent actions of its employees satisfy the criteria for conspiracy.
  • Criminal Code and Procedures Act ("CCPA") Sec. 19(3)
(3) Conspiracy: If multiple players have the specific intent to commit a crime, agree to commit that crime, and at least one of them takes an overt act in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, they are guilty of that offense.​
Click to expand...

Stratton’s actions meet each of these four elements: multiple players, specific intent to commit a crime, agreement to commit it, and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Meanwhile, the Ministry of Justice was conducting an investigation, which included placing informants in Stratton's server. When Emmet99 discovered their presence, he deleted incriminating messages and banned members of the MoJ. Additionally, Maelzarun and Mr_GrapeJelly attempted to conceal funds from authorities, further impeding the investigation. By taking these actions, the defendants willfully interfered with the apprehension and prosecution of their crimes. These actions constitute obstruction of justice.
  • Criminal Code and Procedures Act ("CCPA") Sec. 7(a)
(a) Obstruction of Justice - A player is guilty of obstruction of justice if they willfully and deliberately act in a manner which hinders the apprehension, conviction, defense, or punishment of any player.​
(i) Maximum Punishment: £1,000 Fine + 10 minutes in jail.​
Click to expand...

Your Honor, the facts are clear. Maelzarun issued the order, members agreed to follow it, and Emmet99 attempted to hide their misconduct. The defendants’ conduct demonstrates intent, agreement, and deliberate obstruction. This constitutes Conspiracy to Commit Fraud, Conspiracy to Commit New Player Fraud, and Obstruction of Justice.

Respectfully Submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria
 
IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
OPENING STATEMENT

The replacement prosecutor is buried under a heaping pile of exhibits entered by the previous prosecutor. These exhibits came from Stratton's employees and lawyers.

The complete picture painted by the evidence is that Defendants Maelzarun and Mr_GrapeJelly were happy to exploit others for a quick buck -- so long as it wasn't a crime.

Once the Crown had finished making Defendants' business model illegal, they ceased business -- out of their highly moral nature and their fear of being punished -- despite the encouragement of MoJ and Redmont DoJ "informants."

(In FTLCEO's defense, he wanted to be in a Trolligarch video.)

But that's not a useful story if you're the Crown and you're trying to recover 25,000 SC that you've already admitted you aren't legally entitled to, so apparently we are all still here, trying to figure out why hundreds of screenshots of their general sadness count as intent to nonspecifically defraud someone.

The one major difference between this opening statement and the last one is that it's way less specific. I can't make out anything in this version that's cognizable as an explanation of how or when agreement was reached.

There's also nothing clearly recognizable as an "overt act"; Emmet deleted a bunch of logs, but didn't plan or discuss that with Defendants. Plus, those logs were recovered via informants, so we know what they say -- they make Defendants look innocent and Emmet look guilty, so it wouldn't make sense to say he conspired with Defendants to do that. Aside from that, Maelzarun (apparently) posted an ad for money-laundering services, but no one replied. Plus, that happened after all charges were filed, so it doesn't make sense to assert the complaint could have been about that.

The fact that I'm even writing paragraphs like the above has me deeply baffled. I can keep trying to guess what the Crown is referring to, but I shouldn't have to. I need a crime, an incident that proves agreement, and a specific overt act, identified using words in a language the Crown and I speak. How can there be this many opening statements and no coherent account of the conspiracy?

The Crown's second opening statement declines to address a few other issues:

  • The Statute of Limitations Act says ex-post facto laws and bills of attainder are not allowed. The Treaty of Mutual Cooperation in Fraud Prevention is an ex-post facto bill of attainder, which seems like it should also not be allowed.
  • The Crown doesn't opine on whether it would have been illegal for someone to do a Stratton-style deal sometime after June 7th, under the new laws.

The process is the punishment. The Defense asks the Court to proceed swiftly through the remainder of the trial so the rights of the unjustly accused may be restored without further unnecessary delay.

Nyeogmi Choi
Director, Public Defense
Kingdom of Alexandria
 
IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

This case is not about greed. It is about betrayal. It is about a prosecution that now stands on evidence poisoned from the very beginning, evidence handed to the Crown by the same lawyers Emmet 99 paid to defend him.

The Crown will tell you this is a simple story: a company ignored the law and kept scamming people. But that is not the truth. The truth is that Emmet 99 founded Stratton LLC to run legitimate foreign exchange trades, a business that was lawful, public, and openly conducted. When the law changed on June 7 2025, Stratton stopped doing those trades. From that moment on, there were no victims, no deals, no money changing hands. What remained was nothing more than frustrated discussion in a chat room among people trying to understand a brand new law.

The Crown’s entire case depends on conversations and screenshots it never should have had. Those materials came from Agrari, Talion & Partners, Emmet’s own lawyers, attorneys who secretly worked with the prosecutor to incriminate their own client in exchange for leniency. Those actions destroyed Emmet’s right to fair representation guaranteed by K.A. Const. § 22(7). They are the root of every “fact” the Crown will try to use here.

You will hear about a message, “Forget the law, keep doing work.” The prosecution will call that a criminal command. But the message shows no agreement, no plan, no act. The participants immediately disagreed and did nothing. Words without action are not a conspiracy. The CCPA § 19(3) requires specific intent, a shared agreement, and an overt act. None exist.

You will also hear that Emmet deleted Discord messages. He did. He did so in panic, after discovering that his own counsel, the people he trusted, had turned informant against him. The Court has already sanctioned him once with a £1000 contempt fine. To stretch that frightened moment into a second criminal conviction would double punish a man for the same act of confusion and fear.

When this trial concludes, the evidence will show only three things:
  1. Stratton’s business was legal until the law changed.
  2. Stratton ceased operations the instant the law changed.
  3. The Crown’s evidence is tainted, incomplete, and built on betrayal, not on proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
This proceeding must be about justice, not vengeance. The prosecution has already extracted its penalty through delay, frozen assets, and ruined reputation. The defense asks this Court to see through the noise, to recognize that talk is not conspiracy, that fear is not obstruction, and that no amount of poisoned evidence can make an innocent man guilty.

Respectfully submitted,
Nim
Public Defender
 
The Crown will now present their evidence either though witness testimony or other direct or circumstantial evidence following §10.5.b of the Criminal Code and Procedure Act.

As a reminder the following witnesses have been proposed by the Crown

1. PricelessAgrari
2. 12700k
3. Tailon77
4. Ameslap
5. Real42Person
6. Ibney0

Please inform the court of which or all of the witnesses they would like called upon if any.
The Crown will have 36 hours to make the court aware, present other evidence, or request a continuance if necessary.

Should witnesses be called, the court will allow extra time for them to present themselves and testimony offered.

@SoggehToast​
 
Your Honor,

The Crown wishes to call the following witnesses to testify:

1. Tailon77
2. PricelessAgrari
3. 12700k
4. Ibney0

Respectfully Submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria
 
SoggehToast said:
Your Honor,

The Crown wishes to call the following witnesses to testify:

1. Tailon77
2. PricelessAgrari
3. 12700k
4. Ibney0

Respectfully Submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria
Click to expand...
Can we ever just move on from this case 😭.

Oh yeah, present
 
MCA.png
IN THE MAGISTRATES' COURT OF ALEXANDRIA
WRIT OF SUMMONS

@pricelessAgrari, @Ibney0, @12700k, and @Talion77 are required to appear before the Magistrates' Court In the case of
The Crown v. Stratton LLC, Emmet99, Maelzarun, Mr_GrapeJelly, Talion77, Case 11 (Mag. Ct., 2025)

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons may result in Contempt charges.

All parties will make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures (General and Magistrates).

@SoggehToast, when a witness has presented themselves you are free to begin questioning.​
 
Your honour,

I am willing to assist and testify as a favour to the government, but I must inform you that I no longer play on the server. As such, I ask the Court understand if I happen to miss a question within the time frame allotted.
 
@SoggehToast Please present your questions for the witnesses, you will have 48 hours to do so or we will move on.​
 
IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
QUESTIONS FOR WITNESSES

@Ibney0, thank you for your participation in this case. I have the following questions for you:

1. Please describe your background and career experience, including any positions you have held that are relevant to your investigative work and credibility.

2. What specific evidence and data, if any, did you collect during your investigation of this matter?

3. What methods or procedures did you use to investigate this case?

4. Do you believe these methods produce accurate results?

5. How did you apply these procedures and methods to the facts and data in this case?

6. Do you believe your findings will assist the Court in understanding the evidence and/or determining the facts at issue in this case?
 
IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
QUESTIONS FOR WITNESSES

Thank you all for your participation in this case.

To @Talion77, @pricelessAgrari, and @12700k,

1. Please provide an overview of Stratton LLC's business model as you understand it.

2. What type of customers did Stratton conduct business with?

3. To your knowledge, did Stratton LLC management make efforts to have employees target new players specifically?

4. What was the reason, if any, that new players were targeted?

5. How, if at all, did the Criminal Code and Procedures Act affect Stratton's business?

6. What communications, if any, occurred among Stratton LLC employees after June 7th regarding the new law?

7. What directives, if any, did Manager Maelzarun give to Stratton employees on or around June 9th?

8. What response, if any, did Mr_GrapeJelly and any other members present in the channel give to those directives?

9. What discussions, if any, took place among Stratton employees about how to continue business after the law passed?

10. What specific methods, if any, were discussed for continuing operations?

11. Which Stratton LLC members, if any, participated in these discussions?

12. What actions, if any, were taken by Stratton LLC employees after the Criminal Codes and Procedures Act received royal assent, consistent with continuing operations?

13. What actions, if any, did CEO Emmet99 take when he learned the Ministry of Justice was investigating Stratton LLC?

14. What happened to Ministry of Justice members who were in the Discord server, if anything?

15. Do you know what was discussed in the messages deleted by Emmet99?

16. Which employees, if any, made efforts to conceal funds from the Ministry of Justice?

Respectfully Submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria
 
IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
OBJECTIONS

OBJECTIONS: ibney0

2 (nascent Breach of Procedure) The Crown is inviting the witness (the former prosecutor) to introduce new evidence ("data") after discovery.
4 (Leading, Ambiguous) Invites an unelaborated "yes." Also, accurate as to what? (and to what degree?)
6 (Calls for Conclusion, Relevance) "Is this legally persuasive?" and "Does this prove our case?" are not questions for witnesses.

OBJECTIONS: Talion77, pricelessAgrari, 12700k

1, 2, 3, 4 (Relevance): No party disputes any facts about this, including the fact that Stratton's business model was legal.
4 (Assumes Facts Not In Evidence): Question assumes that new players _were_ targeted.
6, 9, 10, 11, 12 (Privilege): All three witnesses were employees of AGRARI, TALION & PARTNERS. These are questions about legal advice Defendants sought while (faithlessly and perfidiously) represented by them.
12 (Ambiguity) "Consistent with continuing operations" is unclear. Are these the methods from question 10, or are these "any methods at all? "
14 (Ambiguous): Which Ministry of Justice members, which Discord server, and when?
15 (Leading): Invites an unelaborated "yes."
15 (Privilege?): If the deleted messages include previously unmentioned attorney-client communications, then this is also privileged.
16 (Calls for a Conclusion): "Who obstructed justice?" is not a question for witnesses.
16 (Relevance): No allegations from #2 or #39 were amended into the complaint. This is not relevant to any contested fact.

Nyeogmi Choi
Director, Public Defense
Kingdom of Alexandria
 
IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY FOR CONTINUANCE

Your Honor,

The Crown respectfully requests a 24-hour continuance to conduct follow-up questioning of the witness Ibney0. After the initial testimony, the Crown intends to request that the Court qualify Ibney0 as an expert witness. Should the Court grant Ibney0 expert witness status, the Crown will require an additional 24-hour continuance to conduct a full round of questioning necessary to establish the facts of this case.

Respectfully Submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria
 
IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS

RESPONSE TO "OBJECTIONS: ibney0"
2 (nascent Breach of Procedure) The Crown is inviting the witness (the former prosecutor) to introduce new evidence ("data") after discovery.
Click to expand...
This objection misunderstands the process for expert witness testimony under our legal system. Under Section 11(2) of A.P. 01-008, the Crown must establish that expert testimony is 'based on sufficient facts or data' before such testimony is admissible. This question addresses that requirement. This is not, as the Defendant has stated, 'new evidence.' This clearly does not constitute a breach of procedure. It is the proper process for qualifying an expert witness under the Rules of Evidence Act.

4 (Leading, Ambiguous) Invites an unelaborated "yes." Also, accurate as to what? (and to what degree?)
Click to expand...
The word 'accurate' is not ambiguous in this context. 'Accurate' has a plain, ordinary meaning, namely that something is correct, free from error, or conforming to fact. See Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, which defines 'accurate' as 'free from error especially as the result of care'. The witness, as a former Solicitor General as well as the investigator in this case, is competent to understand and answer whether the data conforms to the facts. This question conforms to the standard procedure for establishing expert qualification under Section 11(2) of the Rules of Evidence Act, which requires demonstrating that the testimony is 'the product of reliable principles and methods.' The objection that this question may elicit a 'yes' answer is meritless. There is no rule prohibiting yes/no questions on direct examination. If opposing counsel believes the answer requires elaboration, they may explore it on cross-examination

6 (Calls for Conclusion, Relevance) "Is this legally persuasive?" and "Does this prove our case?" are not questions for witnesses.
Click to expand...
Again, this objection misunderstands the process for expert witness testimony under our legal system. The Defendant has grossly mischaracterized the question. The Crown did not ask whether the findings were "legally persuasive" or "prove our case." Instead, the question asks whether the expert's findings will assist the Court in understanding the evidence or determining the facts at issue, which is the exact standard outlined in Section 11(2)(a)(i) of the Rules of Evidence Act.

Additionally, Section 11(3)(a) explicitly states that "an opinion is not objectionable simply because it embraces an ultimate issue." Expert witnesses are explicitly permitted to give opinions on ultimate issues. Even if this question did call for a conclusion, and it does not, it would still be admissible. Under the Rules of Evidence Act, this objection is completely meritless.

RESPONSE TO "OBJECTIONS: Talion77, pricelessAgrari, 12700k"
1, 2, 3, 4 (Relevance): No party disputes any facts about this, including the fact that Stratton's business model was legal.
Click to expand...
Under Section 8(1) of the Rules of Evidence Act, evidence is relevant if it "has a tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence and the fact is a consequence in determining the action." The Crown's question does not seek to establish any single disputed fact. Rather, it is an open-ended question designed to frame the facts that have been established thus far in their proper context. Context and framing are relevant under Section 8(1) because they affect the significance and weight of the facts in determining this case. The objection is a misuse of the relevance standard.

Respectfully Submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria
 
Your Honor,

I would like to inform the Court that I intend to respond to the remaining objections filed by opposing counsel when time allows.

Respectfully Submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria
 
1. Respectfully, it has been near half a year now. If this had taken place sooner I would have a better idea, but it is unreasonable to assume I would remember such details.

2. New players

3. Emmet specifically trained me to pick players with 6 hours or less playtime on DC.

4. They were more likely to not have visited SC, therefore more money for us.

5. Management asked for ideas to make money, whatever the new manager Maezelrun or something told us to keep going. From what I remember, no one listened to their instructions.

6. Again, I will not be able to give specifics as I have foggy memory of it, but I believe we were told to keep doing the activity.

7. Same as what I said before.

8. I don’t remember

9. Might have been more illegal activities.

10. I don’t remember

11. I don’t remember

12. I believe no more transactions were made

13. I think I left before then.

14. Same as before

15. No

16. Like I have said previously, left before the
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top