Lawsuit: Pending The Crown v. Thritystone & 12700k, Case 3 (Mag. Ct., 2026)

[SoggehToast]

IN THE MAGISTRATE’S COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
RESPONSE TO "RESPONSE OF THE DEFENDANT 12700K TO CROWN’S SUBMISSION ON JURISDICTION AND EVIDENTIARY ADMISSIBILITY"

Your Honor,

The Defendant’s persistent confusion between the distinct legal principles of jurisdiction and evidentiary admissibility has proven to be unrelenting. The Crown therefore finds it necessary to address both subjects, for the purpose of persuading the Court that the territorial origin of the evidence in question is a legally uninteresting matter which, upon even minimal inspection, should be deemed irrelevant to its admissibility.

There are two questions currently being conflated which it is useful, for the purposes of this objection, to separate. The first concerns evidentiary admissibility. The Defense would have this Court believe that, because the evidence was collected outside of Alexandrian territory, it is therefore inadmissible before this Court. However, no such standard exists in the Rules of Evidence Act, which imposes no limitation on the admissibility of evidence based on territorial origin.

The second is whether some conduct which occurred outside of Alexandrian territory may nevertheless be subject to criminal prosecution. The only reasonable answer is yes, though it is necessary to explain why this is so. Both the Magistrates Court and the Chancery have repeatedly and consistently permitted the prosecution of conduct which, strictly speaking, occurred outside of Alexandrian territory. Under the Defense’s interpretation, virtually any conduct not occurring in-game or on the StateCraft Discord server would fall beyond the reach of prosecution, including, but not limited to, education fraud, election fraud, criminal conspiracies, espionage, the leaking of classified information, extortion, and new player fraud. It is the logical consequence of the Defense’s position that offenses such as espionage, the unauthorized disclosure of classified information, or extortion would be lawful so long as they occurred in Redmont, via direct messages, or on external Discord servers.

This view is wholly untenable. Such offenses rarely occur through in-game messages, which are largely publicly accessible, or on the StateCraft Discord server, which is likewise public. The proposition that one may lawfully extort the Prime Minister — or even more alarmingly, Magistrate AmityBlamity — so long as they do so in the privacy of direct Discord messages, is quite simply absurd.

The Crown again reiterates this Court has jurisdiction over the matter in question, because the crimes charged are Alexandrian crimes, committed against Alexandrian interests, involving conduct that occurred in, or were intended to occur in, Alexandria.

Respectfully submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria

 

[AmityBlamity]

IN THE MAGISTRATE’S COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA


DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S PRELIMINARY RULING ON THE ENTREATY TO SUPPRESS & NOTICE OF OBJECTION

TO THE HONORABLE MAGISTRATE:

The Defendant, 12700K, through undersigned counsel, acknowledges the Court’s preliminary ruling to reserve judgment on the Defense’s Entreaty to Suppress evidence originating from DemocracyCraft (Redmont). However, the Defense must formally object to this procedural course of action on grounds of fundamental fairness, due process, and the statutory framework governing trials, and requests the Court reconsider its decision to defer the ruling.

I. DEFERRING A RULING ON ADMISSIBILITY TO VERDICT CONSTITUTES REVERSIBLE ERROR AND PREJUDICE.

The purpose of a pre-trial Entreaty to Suppress, as codified in CCPA Sec. 10(3)(b), is to resolve questions of admissibility before evidence is presented to the trier of fact. The Rules of Evidence Act, Sec. 4(4), is unequivocal: “The court shall not consider evidence which has been excluded for the merits of the case.”

By postponing a ruling until verdict, the Court creates an untenable and prejudicial situation:
1. Prejudice to the Defendant: The Crown will present the disputed evidence during its case-in-chief. Regardless of any later ruling, its impact—the very “unfair prejudice” contemplated by Rules of Evidence Act Sec. 8(3)—cannot be un-heard by the Court acting as the trier of fact. This violates the core principle behind suppression motions.
2. Procedural Impropriety: It effectively requires the Defendant to stand trial based on evidence that may be fundamentally inadmissible. This contravenes the statutory sequence established in the CCPA, where evidentiary disputes are to be resolved during the pre-trial discovery and entreaty phase (CCPA Sec. 10(3)).
3. Burden and Confusion: It forces the Defense to simultaneously argue the *weight* of the evidence (during trial) and its *admissibility* (at verdict), conflating two distinct legal analyses and prejudicing the Defense’s ability to present a clear case.

II. THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE IS A THRESHOLD LEGAL QUESTION, NOT A FACTUAL ONE FOR VERDICT.

The question presented is not whether the DemocracyCraft evidence is persuasive, but whether this Court, under the Rules of Evidence Act Sec. 2(1), is legally permitted to consider it at all. This is a pure question of law regarding the scope of the Court’s original jurisdiction and the applicable rules of evidence.

Deciding this legal question after the trial’s conclusion turns the proper procedure on its head. The verdict stage (CCPA Sec. 10(6)) is for determining guilt based solely on admissible evidence. To first consider the evidence, then decide if it was permissible to consider it, is logically and legally flawed.

III. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION & ALTERNATIVE RELIEF

In the interest of judicial economy and to prevent a potential mistrial or reversible error on appeal, the Defense respectfully requests the Court to:

1. Reconsider and rule on the Entreaty to Suppress prior to the commencement of the Crown’s case-in-chief, as contemplated by statute; or, in the alternative,
2. Issue a binding preliminary finding under Rules of Evidence Act Sec. 5(1) that the evidence is conditionally admitted, subject to a final ruling on its admissibility as a matter of law at the close of the Crown’s case, but before the Defense is required to present its case. This would at least allow the Defense to know the evidentiary landscape before deciding on trial strategy.

A deferral to verdict deprives the Defense of a fair opportunity to respond to the case actually presented and is inconsistent with the procedural safeguards of the CCPA and Rules of Evidence Act.

CONCLUSION

The Defense maintains that the evidence from DemocracyCraft is inadmissible. Postponing a ruling on this critical issue risks trying the Defendant with evidence that may be statutorily barred, undermining the integrity of the proceedings. The Court has the authority and duty to rule on this entreaty now.

Respectfully submitted,

SrICEKING
Legal Representative for Defendant 12700K

Denied. I will hear no further arguments on this matter at this time.

 

[SrICEKING]

IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA


MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ENTREATY TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO ESTABLISH A PRIMA FACIE CASE

TO THE HONORABLE MAGISTRATE:

The Defendant, 12700K, through undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this memorandum in renewed support of its Entreaty to Dismiss all charges, pursuant to CCPA Sec. 10(3)(e), for "such a lack of evidence that a reasonable magistrate could never find the player guilty."

Given the Court's rulings on procedural matters, the Defense now focuses the Court's attention on the fundamental, substantive failure of the prosecution's case: the complete absence of evidence to satisfy the actus reus (guilty act) of the charged offenses.

I. THE LEGAL STANDARD: ELEMENTS OF THE CHARGED CRIMES

The prosecution bears the burden to prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt (CCPA Sec. 4(10), Sec. 16). The relevant elements for the core charges are:

* Bribery (CCPA Sec. 21(3)(b)): Requires proof of a corrupt exchange—a benefit offered or given to persuade someone to commit an illegal or immoral act.
* Conspiracy & Attempt (CCPA Sec. 19): Require proof of a substantial step or overt act in furtherance of the underlying crime (here, bribery or election fraud). Without proof of the underlying criminal agreement or action, these inchoate offenses cannot stand

II. FATAL EVIDENTIARY DEFICIENCY: ABSENCE OF THE QUID PRO QUO

The Crown's entire theory of the case hinges on an alleged agreement to exchange a benefit for votes. However, the evidence provided (Exhibits P-013 to P-016) is devoid of any proof of a benefit being conferred, offered, or transferred.

1. No Financial Transaction: There is no record, screenshot, bank log, or witness testimony showing a transfer of funds, items, or any tangible asset from 12700K to any voter or official. An alleged bribery scheme without proof of payment is legally indistinguishable from an unfulfilled idea or mere conversation.
2. No Proof of Other Consideration: The Crown has not alleged or provided evidence of any non-monetary benefit (e.g., promises of future office, services, or privileges) that constitutes the "benefit" element of bribery under CCPA Sec. 21(3)(b).
3. The "Agreement" Itself is Not the Crime: The crime of bribery is not the discussion of a potential corrupt act; it is the execution of that corrupt exchange. CCPA Sec. 5(1) requires both a guilty mind (mens rea) and a guilty action (actus reus). The prosecution may allege intent, but it has provided zero evidence of the requisite guilty action—the provision of a benefit.

III. APPLICATION TO THE SPECIFIC CHARGES

* Charge B (One Violation of Bribery): Fails as the actus reus of providing a benefit is wholly unsubstantiated.
* Charges A & C (Conspiracy to Commit Bribery/Election Fraud): Fail because the alleged overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy are the very same discussions that lack evidence of a concrete benefit. Without proof of a benefit, there is no plausible "substantial step" toward completing the underlying bribery. A conspiracy requires an agreement to commit a crime, not just an agreement to talk.
* Charge D (Attempted Election Fraud): Fails for identical reasons. A "substantial step" toward election fraud via bribery presupposes a step toward completing the bribe. No evidence of a benefit = no substantial step toward the completion of the crime.

IV. CONCLUSION: A LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT CASE

The Crown asks this Court to infer the completion of a criminal transaction based solely on alleged discussions of intent. This is not merely weak evidence; it is legally insufficient evidence. To allow this case to proceed to trial would permit a conviction based on speculation about what might have happened, rather than proof of what did happen. This violates the foundational principles of the CCPA and the burden of proof.

A "reasonable magistrate," viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, could never find the element of a conferred benefit proven beyond a reasonable doubt, because that evidence does not exist in the record.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, for the reasons stated herein, Defendant 12700K respectfully requests that this Honorable Court GRANT the Entreaty to Dismiss all charges (A, B, C, and D) with prejudice.

Respectfully submitted,

SrICEKING
Legal Representative for Defendant 12700K

 

[AmityBlamity]

IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA


MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ENTREATY TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO ESTABLISH A PRIMA FACIE CASE

TO THE HONORABLE MAGISTRATE:

The Defendant, 12700K, through undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this memorandum in renewed support of its Entreaty to Dismiss all charges, pursuant to CCPA Sec. 10(3)(e), for "such a lack of evidence that a reasonable magistrate could never find the player guilty."

Given the Court's rulings on procedural matters, the Defense now focuses the Court's attention on the fundamental, substantive failure of the prosecution's case: the complete absence of evidence to satisfy the actus reus (guilty act) of the charged offenses.

I. THE LEGAL STANDARD: ELEMENTS OF THE CHARGED CRIMES

The prosecution bears the burden to prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt (CCPA Sec. 4(10), Sec. 16). The relevant elements for the core charges are:

* Bribery (CCPA Sec. 21(3)(b)): Requires proof of a corrupt exchange—a benefit offered or given to persuade someone to commit an illegal or immoral act.
* Conspiracy & Attempt (CCPA Sec. 19): Require proof of a substantial step or overt act in furtherance of the underlying crime (here, bribery or election fraud). Without proof of the underlying criminal agreement or action, these inchoate offenses cannot stand

II. FATAL EVIDENTIARY DEFICIENCY: ABSENCE OF THE QUID PRO QUO

The Crown's entire theory of the case hinges on an alleged agreement to exchange a benefit for votes. However, the evidence provided (Exhibits P-013 to P-016) is devoid of any proof of a benefit being conferred, offered, or transferred.

1. No Financial Transaction: There is no record, screenshot, bank log, or witness testimony showing a transfer of funds, items, or any tangible asset from 12700K to any voter or official. An alleged bribery scheme without proof of payment is legally indistinguishable from an unfulfilled idea or mere conversation.
2. No Proof of Other Consideration: The Crown has not alleged or provided evidence of any non-monetary benefit (e.g., promises of future office, services, or privileges) that constitutes the "benefit" element of bribery under CCPA Sec. 21(3)(b).
3. The "Agreement" Itself is Not the Crime: The crime of bribery is not the discussion of a potential corrupt act; it is the execution of that corrupt exchange. CCPA Sec. 5(1) requires both a guilty mind (mens rea) and a guilty action (actus reus). The prosecution may allege intent, but it has provided zero evidence of the requisite guilty action—the provision of a benefit.

III. APPLICATION TO THE SPECIFIC CHARGES

* Charge B (One Violation of Bribery): Fails as the actus reus of providing a benefit is wholly unsubstantiated.
* Charges A & C (Conspiracy to Commit Bribery/Election Fraud): Fail because the alleged overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy are the very same discussions that lack evidence of a concrete benefit. Without proof of a benefit, there is no plausible "substantial step" toward completing the underlying bribery. A conspiracy requires an agreement to commit a crime, not just an agreement to talk.
* Charge D (Attempted Election Fraud): Fails for identical reasons. A "substantial step" toward election fraud via bribery presupposes a step toward completing the bribe. No evidence of a benefit = no substantial step toward the completion of the crime.

IV. CONCLUSION: A LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT CASE

The Crown asks this Court to infer the completion of a criminal transaction based solely on alleged discussions of intent. This is not merely weak evidence; it is legally insufficient evidence. To allow this case to proceed to trial would permit a conviction based on speculation about what might have happened, rather than proof of what did happen. This violates the foundational principles of the CCPA and the burden of proof.

A "reasonable magistrate," viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, could never find the element of a conferred benefit proven beyond a reasonable doubt, because that evidence does not exist in the record.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, for the reasons stated herein, Defendant 12700K respectfully requests that this Honorable Court GRANT the Entreaty to Dismiss all charges (A, B, C, and D) with prejudice.

Respectfully submitted,

SrICEKING
Legal Representative for Defendant 12700K

Denied. We are still in Discovery. You can renew your Entreaty to Dismiss on the basis of the evidence afterward, and I'll make a ruling then.

 

[SoggehToast]

IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
DISCOVERY WITNESS LIST

Your Honor,

The Crown hereby submits the following witnesses for testimony:

- WonderRuby
- emilypancakes22
- ConsequencesInc

Respectfully submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria

 

[Capt11543]

IN THE MAGISTRATE’S COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY FOR SCRUTINY

Honorable Chancellors,

The Crown seeks scrutiny from the Chancery regarding a ruling issued by the honorable Magistrate presiding over this case. With all due respect to the Magistrate, the Crown believes that the ruling was legally and procedurally improper, and would compromise the proceedings going forward.

I. SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS

1. The Crown submitted P-013 through P-016 (the “Disputed Evidence”) as evidence for this trial. (The Crown v. Thritystone, 12700k, Case 3 (Mag. Ct., 2026) #29).
2. Counsel for Defendant 12700k entreated the Court to suppress the Disputed Evidence and dismiss the charges against their client. (id. at #54; id. at #58).
3. The Crown submitted responses to the Defense’s entreaties, arguing in favor of admitting the Disputed Evidence. (id. at #57; id. at #61).
4. The honorable Magistrate ruled that a ruling on the admissibility of the Disputed Evidence would be deferred until the final verdict of the case. (id. at #59)
5. The Defense submitted an Entreaty to Dismiss, arguing that deferring a decision on the admissibility of the Disputed Evidence was a procedural error. (id. at #60)
6. The honorable Magistrate declined to grant reconsideration. (id. at #62)

II. BASIS FOR APPEAL
Although the Crown disagrees with the Defense's assertion that the Disputed Evidence is inadmissible, the Crown agrees with the Defense that a ruling on the admissibility of the Disputed Evidence is necessary before proceeding to trial.

1. The Rules of Evidence Act stipulates: “All evidence submitted to a Court during trial must be admissible under this act. [...] If a party believes evidence not admissible, they may object to the admission of the evidence when offered. A Court shall make a ruling on the admissibility of evidence if a party objects.” (A.P. 01-008 §4(1))
2. The same Act also prohibits Courts from considering inadmissible evidence. (id. at §4(4))
3. The Criminal Code and Procedure Act establishes the discovery phase as part of criminal trials, before opening statements, during which both sides are expressly permitted to file several Entreaties with the Court, including Entreaties to Suppress. (A.P. 01-006 §10(3))
4. The Crown properly moved to introduce the Disputed Evidence, and the Defense exercised their legal right to object to the evidence. As a result, the honorable Magistrate was obligated to rule on the admissibility of the Disputed Evidence, but she did not.
5. The deferral of a ruling on the admissibility of the Disputed Evidence leaves both the Crown and the Defense open to potential harm:
   • If the Crown is provisionally permitted to present this evidence as part of its case, but a Court later rules that it was not admissible, then the Defendant will have been unfairly prejudiced by the use of the evidence in the Crown’s statements to the Court.
   • Conversely, if the Crown is not permitted to present legally admissible evidence, then the Crown’s ability to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt will have been limited by a procedural error.
6. Since the honorable Magistrate has declined to grant reconsideration in this matter, the only available avenue for remedy is appeal to the Chancery.

III. PRAYER ON APPEAL
The Crown therefore petitions the Chancery to:

1. Reverse the Magistrate’s decision to defer a ruling on the admissibility of the Disputed Evidence until the verdict.
2. Deliver a binding ruling on the admissibility of the Disputed Evidence in this trial.

Respectfully submitted,
Capt11543
Crown Counsel

@AsexualDinosaur

 

[Nim]

OBJECTION - PROCEDURAL BREACH
Violation of Discovery Deadline & Right to Speedy Trial

---

I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant Thritystone objects to the indefinite extension of discovery on grounds of Procedural Breach. This Court ordered opening arguments on February 3, 2026, then nullified that order at the Crown's request without any formal motion or procedural basis. It is now February 10, 2026—with no end to discovery in sight—while the election remains suspended and the Defendant remains under public accusation. This violates the General Court Rules and the Defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial.

---

II. THE PROCEDURAL HISTORY SHOWS IMPROPER EXTENSION

A. The Complete Timeline

Date	Event
Jan 25	Discovery period began (#20)
Jan 28, 12:04 PM	Defense files Entreaty of Continuance requesting 48-hour extension
Jan 28, 12:24 PM	GRANTED - 48-hour extension (#25)
Jan 30, 12:24 PM	Extended deadline expires
Jan 30	Crown files Entreaty to Amend (new defendant, new charges, P-013 to P-018)
Jan 31, 11:23 AM	Discovery PAUSED pending 12700k's appearance and plea
Jan 31, 3:23 PM	12700k given 48 hours to enter plea
Feb 3, 4:39 AM	Magistrate orders: "You have 72 hours to present opening arguments"
Feb 3 (later)	Crown requests clarification, cites "reopening of Discovery"
Feb 3/5	Magistrate nullifies opening arguments order without formal motion
Feb 6	Magistrate states "We are still in Discovery" (#68)
Feb 7	Crown files Entreaty for Scrutiny to Chancery
Feb 10	Today - 16 days since original deadline

B. The Rules Are Clear
The General Court Rules and Procedures unambiguously state:

"Discovery - Up to 72 hours (can end early if both parties agree)"

This is a maximum, not a minimum. Discovery may be shortened by agreement, but the rules provide no mechanism for indefinite extension. The 48-hour extension granted on January 28 was proper. Everything since has been procedurally irregular.

C. The "Pause" Was Not an Extension
On January 31, the Court stated: "Discovery is paused until such time 12700k has made themselves present and presented their plea."
A pause is not an extension. A pause tolls proceedings temporarily; it does not restart the clock. Once 12700k entered a plea (Feb 3-5), the pause should have ended and discovery should have closed.

D. The Court Itself Ordered Opening Arguments
On February 3, this Court ordered the Crown to present opening arguments within 72 hours. This order necessarily means discovery was closed. The Court cannot order opening arguments while discovery remains open—that would defeat the entire purpose of discovery.
Yet the Court then nullified this order at the Crown's informal request, without

• A formal motion for extension
• Good cause shown
• Any time limit set

This is not a proper exercise of discretion. It is the abandonment of procedural rules.

---

III. THE CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES A SPEEDY TRIAL
K.A. Const. § V Art. 22(7) provides:

"Every player has the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judicial Officer and to be informed of the nature of the charges against them."

This right has two components, both of which are violated here:

A. Speedy Trial
The election has been suspended since January 22. The Defendant—a candidate—has been publicly accused and prevented from participating in the democratic process for 19 days while the Crown continues to add charges and evidence without limitation. This is not a speedy trial.
The General Court Rules identify "Speed and timely care as reasonable" as Guiding Principle #4. An indefinite discovery period violates this principle.

B. Informed of the Nature of Charges
The purpose of discovery is to ensure both parties know the evidence and charges before trial. When discovery has no end, the Defendant cannot know "the nature of the charges" because those charges continue to change. The Crown's January 30 Entreaty to Amend sought to add:

• 2 new conspiracy charges
• 1 new defendant (12700k)
• 6 new evidence exhibits (P-013 through P-018)

This is precisely what discovery deadlines are designed to prevent.

---

IV. THE CROWN CANNOT MANUFACTURE EXTENSIONS BY FILING NEW MOTIONS
The Crown has effectively kept discovery open by filing the Entreaty to Amend on January 30—the last day of the extended deadline. This tactic cannot be permitted. If the Crown can extend discovery indefinitely by filing amendment motions, the 72-hour rule is meaningless.
The Crown had 120 hours (5 days) to build its case. That was sufficient time to:

• Gather evidence
• Identify defendants
• Determine charges
• File necessary motions

The Crown chose to file a narrow complaint against one defendant. It cannot now complain that it needs more time to expand that complaint.

---

V. THE FEBRUARY 3 ORDER SHOULD BE REINSTATED
On February 3, 2026, this Court properly recognized that discovery had concluded and ordered opening arguments within 72 hours. That order was correct. It should be reinstated.
The Crown's informal request for "clarification" was not a proper motion for extension. The Crown did not:

• File an Entreaty of Continuance
• Demonstrate good cause for delay
• Propose any deadline

The Court's nullification of its own order, without any formal motion or showing of cause, was procedurally improper.

---

VI. THE CROWN'S DELAY PREJUDICES THE DEFENDANT
The Defendant has been under public accusation for 19 days. The election remains suspended. The Defendant's political campaign is frozen. Every day of delay:

• Extends the suspension of the democratic process
• Prolongs the Defendant's public accusation without trial
• Violates the Guiding Principle of "Speed and timely care as reasonable"

The Crown has had ample time. It filed its original complaint on January 22. It had five full days of discovery. It chose to expand its case at the last minute. It cannot now claim it needs indefinite additional time.

---

VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Defendant Thritystone respectfully requests that this Court:

1. REINSTATE the February 3, 2026 order requiring opening arguments within 72 hours;
2. DECLARE that the discovery period has concluded;
3. ORDER that no further evidence may be admitted by either party;
4. In the alternative, if the Court declines to proceed immediately:
   • SET a date certain for discovery to close (no later than February 12, 2026);
   • PROHIBIT further amendments to charges, parties, or evidence after that date;
   • ORDER the Crown to show cause why the emergency relief suspending the election should not be lifted, given that the Crown's own delays are prolonging the suspension.

The Defendant has a constitutional right to a speedy trial. Nineteen days of accusation without trial, while the election remains frozen, is not speedy. The Court's February 3 order was correct. It should be reinstated.

---

Respectfully submitted,
Nim
Counsel for Defendant Thritystone

February 10, 2026

 

[Nim]

MOTION TO EXCLUDE WITNESS TESTIMONY OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO REOPEN DISCOVERY

---

​

Defendant Thritystone, by and through counsel, respectfully moves this Court to exclude the testimony of witnesses WonderRuby and ConsequencesInc, or in the alternative, to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of compelling production of witness statements.

I. BACKGROUND

1. On January 28, 2026, Defendant filed an Entreaty to Compel, requesting the Crown produce, among other items:

"Witness statements or summaries of expected testimony from WonderRuby and ConsequencesInc."

2. On January 28, 2026, the Court ordered the Crown to respond within 24 hours.
3. The Crown responded to each item of the Entreaty. As to the witness statements (Item 5), the Crown stated:

"The Crown intends to seek additional time to prepare this."

4. The Crown never sought such additional time.
5. The Crown never produced any witness statements or summaries.
6. Discovery has now closed.

II. ARGUMENT

A. The Crown's Failure to Produce Is Prejudicial

The purpose of discovery is to prevent trial by ambush and ensure both parties can adequately prepare their case. Witness statements are fundamental to this purpose—they allow the opposing party to:

• Prepare effective cross-examination
• Identify inconsistencies in testimony
• Investigate claims made by witnesses
• Make informed strategic decisions

The Crown has named WonderRuby and ConsequencesInc as witnesses. These are the Crown's primary witnesses—the entire case rests on their accounts. Yet Defendant has been denied any preview of their expected testimony despite a lawful discovery request and the Crown's own acknowledgment that production was required.

B. The Crown Cannot Benefit From Its Own Default

The Crown acknowledged the legitimacy of Defendant's request by promising to "seek additional time to prepare" the witness statements. Having made this representation, the Crown then:

1. Never sought additional time
2. Never produced the statements
3. Never informed the Court or Defense of any difficulty in compliance

This is not a case of oversight. The Crown made a deliberate choice not to comply with its discovery obligations. The Crown should not now be permitted to call witnesses whose statements it refused to disclose.

C. Exclusion Is the Appropriate Remedy

When a party fails to comply with discovery obligations, the proper remedy is exclusion of the evidence or testimony that should have been disclosed. This serves two purposes:

1. It prevents prejudice to the non-violating party
2. It incentivizes compliance with discovery rules

Allowing the Crown to call WonderRuby and ConsequencesInc without having disclosed their expected testimony would reward the Crown's noncompliance and severely prejudice Defendant's ability to mount an effective defense.

III. RELIEF REQUESTED

Defendant respectfully requests that this Court:

PRIMARY RELIEF: Exclude the testimony of WonderRuby and ConsequencesInc at trial, or limit their testimony to matters already disclosed in the documentary evidence (P-001 through P-012).

ALTERNATIVE RELIEF: If the Court is not inclined to exclude the witnesses, Defendant requests:

1. The Court reopen discovery for the limited purpose of compelling production of witness statements;
2. Defendant be granted adequate time to review such statements before trial; and
3. The Crown be admonished for its failure to comply with discovery.

---

​

Respectfully submitted,

Nim
Counsel for Defendant Thritystone

 

[AmityBlamity]

OBJECTION - PROCEDURAL BREACH
Violation of Discovery Deadline & Right to Speedy Trial

---

I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant Thritystone objects to the indefinite extension of discovery on grounds of Procedural Breach. This Court ordered opening arguments on February 3, 2026, then nullified that order at the Crown's request without any formal motion or procedural basis. It is now February 10, 2026—with no end to discovery in sight—while the election remains suspended and the Defendant remains under public accusation. This violates the General Court Rules and the Defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial.

---

II. THE PROCEDURAL HISTORY SHOWS IMPROPER EXTENSION

A. The Complete Timeline

Date	Event
Jan 25	Discovery period began (#20)
Jan 28, 12:04 PM	Defense files Entreaty of Continuance requesting 48-hour extension
Jan 28, 12:24 PM	GRANTED - 48-hour extension (#25)
Jan 30, 12:24 PM	Extended deadline expires
Jan 30	Crown files Entreaty to Amend (new defendant, new charges, P-013 to P-018)
Jan 31, 11:23 AM	Discovery PAUSED pending 12700k's appearance and plea
Jan 31, 3:23 PM	12700k given 48 hours to enter plea
Feb 3, 4:39 AM	Magistrate orders: "You have 72 hours to present opening arguments"
Feb 3 (later)	Crown requests clarification, cites "reopening of Discovery"
Feb 3/5	Magistrate nullifies opening arguments order without formal motion
Feb 6	Magistrate states "We are still in Discovery" (#68)
Feb 7	Crown files Entreaty for Scrutiny to Chancery
Feb 10	Today - 16 days since original deadline

B. The Rules Are Clear
The General Court Rules and Procedures unambiguously state:

This is a maximum, not a minimum. Discovery may be shortened by agreement, but the rules provide no mechanism for indefinite extension. The 48-hour extension granted on January 28 was proper. Everything since has been procedurally irregular.

C. The "Pause" Was Not an Extension
On January 31, the Court stated: "Discovery is paused until such time 12700k has made themselves present and presented their plea."
A pause is not an extension. A pause tolls proceedings temporarily; it does not restart the clock. Once 12700k entered a plea (Feb 3-5), the pause should have ended and discovery should have closed.

D. The Court Itself Ordered Opening Arguments
On February 3, this Court ordered the Crown to present opening arguments within 72 hours. This order necessarily means discovery was closed. The Court cannot order opening arguments while discovery remains open—that would defeat the entire purpose of discovery.
Yet the Court then nullified this order at the Crown's informal request, without

• A formal motion for extension
• Good cause shown
• Any time limit set

This is not a proper exercise of discretion. It is the abandonment of procedural rules.

---

III. THE CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES A SPEEDY TRIAL
K.A. Const. § V Art. 22(7) provides:

This right has two components, both of which are violated here:

A. Speedy Trial
The election has been suspended since January 22. The Defendant—a candidate—has been publicly accused and prevented from participating in the democratic process for 19 days while the Crown continues to add charges and evidence without limitation. This is not a speedy trial.
The General Court Rules identify "Speed and timely care as reasonable" as Guiding Principle #4. An indefinite discovery period violates this principle.

B. Informed of the Nature of Charges
The purpose of discovery is to ensure both parties know the evidence and charges before trial. When discovery has no end, the Defendant cannot know "the nature of the charges" because those charges continue to change. The Crown's January 30 Entreaty to Amend sought to add:

• 2 new conspiracy charges
• 1 new defendant (12700k)
• 6 new evidence exhibits (P-013 through P-018)

This is precisely what discovery deadlines are designed to prevent.

---

IV. THE CROWN CANNOT MANUFACTURE EXTENSIONS BY FILING NEW MOTIONS
The Crown has effectively kept discovery open by filing the Entreaty to Amend on January 30—the last day of the extended deadline. This tactic cannot be permitted. If the Crown can extend discovery indefinitely by filing amendment motions, the 72-hour rule is meaningless.
The Crown had 120 hours (5 days) to build its case. That was sufficient time to:

• Gather evidence
• Identify defendants
• Determine charges
• File necessary motions

The Crown chose to file a narrow complaint against one defendant. It cannot now complain that it needs more time to expand that complaint.

---

V. THE FEBRUARY 3 ORDER SHOULD BE REINSTATED
On February 3, 2026, this Court properly recognized that discovery had concluded and ordered opening arguments within 72 hours. That order was correct. It should be reinstated.
The Crown's informal request for "clarification" was not a proper motion for extension. The Crown did not:

• File an Entreaty of Continuance
• Demonstrate good cause for delay
• Propose any deadline

The Court's nullification of its own order, without any formal motion or showing of cause, was procedurally improper.

---

VI. THE CROWN'S DELAY PREJUDICES THE DEFENDANT
The Defendant has been under public accusation for 19 days. The election remains suspended. The Defendant's political campaign is frozen. Every day of delay:

• Extends the suspension of the democratic process
• Prolongs the Defendant's public accusation without trial
• Violates the Guiding Principle of "Speed and timely care as reasonable"

The Crown has had ample time. It filed its original complaint on January 22. It had five full days of discovery. It chose to expand its case at the last minute. It cannot now claim it needs indefinite additional time.

---

VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Defendant Thritystone respectfully requests that this Court:

1. REINSTATE the February 3, 2026 order requiring opening arguments within 72 hours;
2. DECLARE that the discovery period has concluded;
3. ORDER that no further evidence may be admitted by either party;
4. In the alternative, if the Court declines to proceed immediately:
   • SET a date certain for discovery to close (no later than February 12, 2026);
   • PROHIBIT further amendments to charges, parties, or evidence after that date;
   • ORDER the Crown to show cause why the emergency relief suspending the election should not be lifted, given that the Crown's own delays are prolonging the suspension.

The Defendant has a constitutional right to a speedy trial. Nineteen days of accusation without trial, while the election remains frozen, is not speedy. The Court's February 3 order was correct. It should be reinstated.

---

Respectfully submitted,
Nim
Counsel for Defendant Thritystone

February 10, 2026

Denied. Discovery has ended. Proceedings are currently paused due to waiting on a ruling from a higher court.

MOTION TO EXCLUDE WITNESS TESTIMONY OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO REOPEN DISCOVERY

---

​

Defendant Thritystone, by and through counsel, respectfully moves this Court to exclude the testimony of witnesses WonderRuby and ConsequencesInc, or in the alternative, to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of compelling production of witness statements.

I. BACKGROUND

1. On January 28, 2026, Defendant filed an Entreaty to Compel, requesting the Crown produce, among other items:


2. On January 28, 2026, the Court ordered the Crown to respond within 24 hours.
3. The Crown responded to each item of the Entreaty. As to the witness statements (Item 5), the Crown stated:


4. The Crown never sought such additional time.
5. The Crown never produced any witness statements or summaries.
6. Discovery has now closed.

II. ARGUMENT

A. The Crown's Failure to Produce Is Prejudicial

The purpose of discovery is to prevent trial by ambush and ensure both parties can adequately prepare their case. Witness statements are fundamental to this purpose—they allow the opposing party to:

• Prepare effective cross-examination
• Identify inconsistencies in testimony
• Investigate claims made by witnesses
• Make informed strategic decisions

The Crown has named WonderRuby and ConsequencesInc as witnesses. These are the Crown's primary witnesses—the entire case rests on their accounts. Yet Defendant has been denied any preview of their expected testimony despite a lawful discovery request and the Crown's own acknowledgment that production was required.

B. The Crown Cannot Benefit From Its Own Default

The Crown acknowledged the legitimacy of Defendant's request by promising to "seek additional time to prepare" the witness statements. Having made this representation, the Crown then:

1. Never sought additional time
2. Never produced the statements
3. Never informed the Court or Defense of any difficulty in compliance

This is not a case of oversight. The Crown made a deliberate choice not to comply with its discovery obligations. The Crown should not now be permitted to call witnesses whose statements it refused to disclose.

C. Exclusion Is the Appropriate Remedy

When a party fails to comply with discovery obligations, the proper remedy is exclusion of the evidence or testimony that should have been disclosed. This serves two purposes:

1. It prevents prejudice to the non-violating party
2. It incentivizes compliance with discovery rules

Allowing the Crown to call WonderRuby and ConsequencesInc without having disclosed their expected testimony would reward the Crown's noncompliance and severely prejudice Defendant's ability to mount an effective defense.

III. RELIEF REQUESTED

Defendant respectfully requests that this Court:

PRIMARY RELIEF: Exclude the testimony of WonderRuby and ConsequencesInc at trial, or limit their testimony to matters already disclosed in the documentary evidence (P-001 through P-012).

ALTERNATIVE RELIEF: If the Court is not inclined to exclude the witnesses, Defendant requests:

1. The Court reopen discovery for the limited purpose of compelling production of witness statements;
2. Defendant be granted adequate time to review such statements before trial; and
3. The Crown be admonished for its failure to comply with discovery.

---

​

Respectfully submitted,

Nim
Counsel for Defendant Thritystone

Crown has 24 hours to respond.

@Capt11543 @SoggehToast @ColonelKai

 

[SoggehToast]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO EXCLUDE WITNESS TESTIMONY OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO REOPEN DISCOVERY

I. ENTREATIES TO COMPEL CONCERN EXISTING EVIDENCE AND INFORMATION
Entreaties to compel are limited to evidence and information already in the Crown's possession. The Crown should not be assumed or expected to provide or create evidence that does not exist, or which is otherwise outside of its possession, as a result of an entreaty to compel. The Defense’s position that the Crown should have procured formal witness statements is simply beyond the scope of what entreaties to compel provide. Throughout the investigation and discovery process, no witness statements were collected. Accordingly, none exist beyond the materials already admitted into evidence. While the Crown may request witness statements from its witnesses, it cannot be assumed that such statements exist or should have been requested simply because the Crown indicated it would comply with the Entreaty to Compel. The issue at hand is whether existing evidence in the Crown's possession was produced. Measured against this standard, the Crown complied.

II. NO PREJUDICE EXISTS
In any event, the Crown could not conceivably have prejudiced the Defense. The Defense claims prejudice based on the Crown’s failure to produce formal witness statements after indicating that it would "seek additional time" to comply with the entreaty. That statement did not imply that witness statements existed or would be produced, only that the Crown required additional time to ensure compliance with the entreaty. As was stated above, no witness statements were prepared during the investigation or discovery process. The Defense has had full access to all communications with the witnesses the Crown intends to use during trial, and any further evidence sought by the Defense from those witnesses may be obtained during cross-examination.

III. VOLUNTARY OFFER TO THE COURT
In a voluntary effort to assist the Defense, the Crown is prepared, upon request from this Court if it deems it appropriate to reopen discovery, to request witness statements from each of the witnesses named in its Discovery Witness List and to produce any such statements once they are received. The Crown, however, reminds the Court that this demand by the Defense is unnecessary, procedurally abnormal, and that the reopening of discovery could risk further disruption and delay.

IV. REGARDING SUMMARIES OF EXPECTED TESTIMONY
The Crown cannot conceivably anticipate what each witness will say in response to questions that had not yet been formulated. Similarly, the Crown could not have been expected to exhaustively list all questions it would ask each witness prior to the completion of discovery, as those questions had not yet been determined. Even if such questions had been listed, the Crown could not have anticipated follow-up or subsequent questions without exact prior knowledge of the witnesses’ testimony. At most, the Crown submits that it can provide to this Court why each witness is relevant to this case.

• ConsequencesInc's testimony is relevant to this Court based on the conversation which occurred between himself and WonderRuby referenced in P-003.
• WonderRuby’s testimony is relevant to this Court because they are the player whom Thritystone is alleged to have bribed or attempted to bribe. WonderRuby can provide information based on their communications with Thritystone and the corresponding actions taken by each party.
• Emilypancakes22’s testimony is likewise relevant to this Court because they are the player whom 12700k is alleged to have bribed or attempted to bribe, and they can provide details about their conversation with 12700k, as reflected in P-013, P-014, P-015, and P-016.

Respectfully submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria