Your honor, if I’m not mistaken, I still have approximately 30 minutes to plea?
Is your client retracting their previous plea of "no contest"?OFFICIAL STATEMENT FROM THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF 12700K
My client, 12700K, hereby formally enters a plea of NOT GUILTY to each and every charge enumerated in the indictment, specifically:
a. Conspiracy to violate CCPA Sec. 21(3)(b);
b. One count of violating CCPA Sec. 21(3)(b) - Bribery;
c.Conspiracy to violate CCPA Sec. 20(6)(d) - Election Fraud;
d.Attempt to violate CCPA Sec. 20(6)(d) - Election Fraud.
MEMORANDUM OF DEFENSE FOR THE ACCUSED, 12700K
The defense respectfully submits the following grounds for the dismissal of all four (4) charges, based on fundamental deficiencies in the prosecution’s case.
I. FAILURE TO MEET THE BURDEN OF PROOF & INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
Pursuant to the Rules of Evidence Act and legal framework omnibus Act, the prosecution bears the affirmative burden of proving each element of the alleged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. The proffered evidence—specifically Exhibits P-013, P-014, P-015, and P-016 is manifestly insufficient to sustain this burden, particularly concerning the essential elements of bribery and election fraud.
Critical Absence of a Quid Pro Quo (Money Transfer) Nexus: The core of a bribery charge under CCPA Sec. 21(3)(b) requires evidence of a corrupt exchange. The prosecution’s exhibits are wholly devoid of any documentation, record, or credible testimony demonstrating a financial transaction or transfer of valuables from the accused to any voter or election official. No “quid pro quo”(Money Transfer) has been established, thereby vitiating the very foundation of the bribery and related conspiracy charges.
II. IMPERMISSIBLE AND EXTRA-JURISDICTIONAL EVIDENCE
The defense objects to the admission of evidence sourced from outside the jurisdiction of this Court, as its consideration constitutes a reversible error.
Violation of the Rules of Evidence Act: As stipulated in Section EVO-1(support evidence attached) of the aforementioned Act, evidence submitted in proceedings before this Magistrate Court must be solely drawn from StateCraft (Alexandria). This is not a mere procedural formality but a jurisdictional prerequisite ensuring the integrity and applicability of evidence. Any material originating from DemocracyCraft (Redmont) is, by statutory definition, inadmissible as it falls outside the competent jurisdiction of this tribunal. To rely on such extrinsic evidence would be prejudicial and contrary to established legal procedure as established by The Rules of Evidence ACT , Civil Procedure ACT and the Judiciary ACT.
CONCLUSION
Based on the insufficiency of evidence to meet the statutory burden of proof and the improper submission of extra-jurisdictional evidence, the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against 12700K. The charges are legally unsupported and must be dismissed in the interests of justice.
Respectfully submitted,
SrICEKING
Legal Representative for 12700K
Reference
Act of Parliament Thread 'A.P. 01-008| Rules of Evidence Act'
Act of Parliament Thread 'A.P. 01-040 | Legal Framework Omnibus Amendments Act'
The Crown has 24 hours to respond to this Entreaty.IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY FOR DISMISS
Your Honor,
Counsel for the Defendant, 12700K, respectfully submits this entreaty for the dismissal of all charges presently before this Court. My client reaffirms his plea of NOT GUILTY to each count in the indictment.
The grounds for this motion are rooted in a fatal legal and evidentiary deficiency that voids the prosecution’s case in its entirety.
I. THE PROSECUTION’S CASE IS LEGALLY INSUSTAINABLE
The charges hinge upon evidence which this Court is statutorily barred from considering. Section 1(a) of the Criminal Code and Procedure Act explicitly mandates that “The Minister of Justice shall enforce all criminal law within the jurisdiction of Alexandria.”
A principled interpretation of this statute establishes a clear jurisdictional boundary: the enforcement authority—and by necessary extension, the adjudicative authority of this Court—is confined to criminal matters arising from and substantiated by evidence within the sovereign jurisdiction of StateCraft (Alexandria). Consequently, evidence procured from the foreign jurisdiction of DemocracyCraft (Redmont) is inadmissible perses.
The prosecution’s reliance on such extra-jurisdictional material constitutes a fundamental legal error. To permit its use would contravene the express territorial limits of this Court’s authority and the enforcement framework established by Parliament.
II. RESULTANT ABSENCE OF PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE
With the extra-jurisdictional evidence deemed void and inadmissible, the prosecution’s case collapses. No competent or admissible evidence remains to establish a prima facie case against the accused for the alleged violations of CCPA Sec. 21(3)(b) and Sec. 20(6)(d). The prosecution cannot meet its burden of proof where the foundational evidence is legally null.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, for the reasons stated herein, the Defense respectfully PRAYS that this Honorable Court:
1. Sustain our objection to all evidence originating from DemocracyCraft (Redmont).
2. Find that the prosecution has failed to present a legally sufficient, admissible case.
3. Dismiss all charges against the Defendant, 12700K, with prejudice.
Respectfully submitted,
SrICEKING
Legal Representative for Defendant 12700K
Support Material
View attachment 1264Act of Parliament Thread 'A.P. 01-006 | Criminal Code and Procedure Act'
Below is the legal evidence provided by the prosecution. in support of the present charges against my client
View attachment 1269
View attachment 1268
View attachment 1267
IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF ALEXANDRIA
Denied. The defendant was perfectly capable of asking for an extension to the initial deadline. The sanction remains in effect.IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY TO RECONSIDER SANCTION
Your Honor,
Counsel for the Defendant, 12700K, hereby submits this formal entreaty for the reconsideration and vacatur of the fine recently levied against my client. The imposition of this sanction is inappropriate and unjust under the circumstances, as it penalizes the Defendant for a systemic failure beyond his control.
The Criminal Code and Procedure Act guarantees the right to timely legal representation. The statute’s intent is clear: the state assumes the obligation to ensure that every accused individual is afforded a meaningful opportunity to mount a defense.
The factual record will demonstrate that the Ministry of Justice was not in a state of operational readiness to fulfill this statutory duty at the material time. Due to this administrative failure, my client was not provided with a public defender within the period prescribed by law.
A fundamental principle of justice holds that an accused cannot be penalized for the state's failure to uphold its own legal obligations. The delay in assigning counsel was not attributable to any action or omission by 12700K, but rather to a deficiency in the ministerial apparatus. To impose a fine under these conditions violates principles of due process and fairness, effectively punishing the Defendant for the government's lapse.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, the Defense respectfully PRAYS that this Honorable Court:
Respectfully submitted,
- Recognize that the fine was imposed under circumstances where the state failed to meet its prerequisite statutory duty.
- Find that holding the Defendant accountable for this systemic failure is contrary to justice.
- Reconsider and vacate the fine against 12700K.
SrICEKING
Legal Representative for Defendant 12700K
SUPPORT TO THIS SUBMISSION:
View attachment 1272Act of Parliament Thread 'A.P. 01-006 | Criminal Code and Procedure Act'
IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY FOR DISMISS
Your Honor,
Counsel for the Defendant, 12700K, respectfully submits this entreaty for the dismissal of all charges presently before this Court. My client reaffirms his plea of NOT GUILTY to each count in the indictment.
The grounds for this motion are rooted in a fatal legal and evidentiary deficiency that voids the prosecution’s case in its entirety.
I. THE PROSECUTION’S CASE IS LEGALLY INSUSTAINABLE
The charges hinge upon evidence which this Court is statutorily barred from considering. Section 1(a) of the Criminal Code and Procedure Act explicitly mandates that “The Minister of Justice shall enforce all criminal law within the jurisdiction of Alexandria.”
A principled interpretation of this statute establishes a clear jurisdictional boundary: the enforcement authority—and by necessary extension, the adjudicative authority of this Court—is confined to criminal matters arising from and substantiated by evidence within the sovereign jurisdiction of StateCraft (Alexandria). Consequently, evidence procured from the foreign jurisdiction of DemocracyCraft (Redmont) is inadmissible perses.
The prosecution’s reliance on such extra-jurisdictional material constitutes a fundamental legal error. To permit its use would contravene the express territorial limits of this Court’s authority and the enforcement framework established by Parliament.
II. RESULTANT ABSENCE OF PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE
With the extra-jurisdictional evidence deemed void and inadmissible, the prosecution’s case collapses. No competent or admissible evidence remains to establish a prima facie case against the accused for the alleged violations of CCPA Sec. 21(3)(b) and Sec. 20(6)(d). The prosecution cannot meet its burden of proof where the foundational evidence is legally null.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, for the reasons stated herein, the Defense respectfully PRAYS that this Honorable Court:
1. Sustain our objection to all evidence originating from DemocracyCraft (Redmont).
2. Find that the prosecution has failed to present a legally sufficient, admissible case.
3. Dismiss all charges against the Defendant, 12700K, with prejudice.
Respectfully submitted,
SrICEKING
Legal Representative for Defendant 12700K
Support Material
View attachment 1264Act of Parliament Thread 'A.P. 01-006 | Criminal Code and Procedure Act'
Below is the legal evidence provided by the prosecution. in support of the present charges against my client
View attachment 1269
View attachment 1268
View attachment 1267
