Nyeogmi
Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2025
- Messages
- 47
IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ULTIMATE THERMONUCLEAR SMALL CLAIMS COURT FILING ENTREATY OF DISMISSAL
Your Honor,
There are few provisions in Alexandrian law requiring dismissal of a criminal case prior to adjudication on the merits. However, Defendants observe that two such bright lines have been crossed.
GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL UNDER CCPA §16(1)
There is an infinite number of ways for any purported event not to have happened. The burden of proof is therefore on the prosecution -- to identify a crime and come up with a theory, supported by evidence, corresponding to its elements. The defense is required to rebut each theory up to a reasonable doubt; otherwise it loses.
The Crown's theory, as stated in the complaint, is that Maelzarun's June 9th order created a conspiracy to accomplish some crime (whose overt acts commenced on the 7th, two days earlier). Defendants have repeatedly asked the Crown to relate this to the elements of conspiracy -- in particular, what that crime would have been -- under the expectation that the Crown would describe a mode of fraud which Defendants were supposedly pursuing. The Crown's consistent responses have been to divert to the issue of the Defendants' legal pretrial conduct, to inadmissibly characterize Defendants as criminal in character, and to assert tautologically that its theory of fraud is that fraud would be committed.
In Docket Entry #219, in non-answer to Defendants' questions, the Crown has taken the explicit position that it doesn't have to connect the evidence to any allegations until the defense has no opportunity for rebuttal. Instead, we are apparently required to preemptively rebut every conceivable negative interpretation of over one hundred pages of chatlogs. This is tantamount to proving Defendants' innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Criminal Code and Procedure Act (CCPA) §16(1) states, unequivocally, in its entirety, that "The Crown may never shift the burden of proof onto the player. If the Crown shifts the burden of proof onto the player it is grounds for a dismissal with prejudice. A player may secure this dismissal through entreaty." CCPA §16(1) does not leave room for Defendants or the Crown to seek lesser sanction, nor does it leave room for the Court to craft one -- the law entitles Defendants to dismissal with prejudice.
GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL UNDER SOLA §8
The Statute of Limitations Act (SOLA) §8 creates a strict duty to vigorously prosecute a case, absent explicit and prior leave granted by the Court in the form of an extension, which itself must not be "egregious and unfair to a party in a case". If the filing side in any action either civil or criminal takes no steps in furtherance of the case after seven days, the case shall be dismissed." (emphasis added)
The suspension of SOLA §8 in The Statute of Limitations Extension Act §4(1) is immaterial as explained in §4(1)(a) itself, which provides that "This suspension shall not apply to court proceedings already in session". Since this court proceeding was already in session as of 2025-Dec-23, SOLA §8 unambiguously applies.
No interpretation of the seven day standard favors the prosecution. The last filing of any kind was December 21st, 2025. Creatively, the case was being "furthered" up until the 24-hour objection deadline elapsed on the last act of witness testimony -- but that's eleven days. Subtract Christmas and Christmas Eve as holidays and therefore uncountable? Nine days. New Year's Eve and New Year's Day may of course be regarded as holidays, leaving us with seven days even if all these counterfactual extensions existed.
During this period the Crown had many options to advance the case. They could have asked their witnesses further questions; they could have filed Entreaties of Prompting to speed up the judge; they could have asked the Chancery for a different judge; they could have asked their witnesses to post faster.
As long as the case continues, the Defendants' rights are compromised in at least two ways on constitutional grounds:
The Crown's request for an injunction initially seemed reasonable to the Court when it said it had evidence proving Defendants were active money launderers engaged in continued scams. (in #39) After the Crown got the injunction it wanted, (#44) it stopped pursuing the allegations altogether, leaving Defendants nothing to rebut.
The issue was not raised in trial until #195, after which the Court ruled the whole matter irrelevant. (#202, objection sustained to question 16) At this point, Defendants' DemocracyCraft and StateCraft assets have been unconstitutionally seized for six months, for reasons that were never adequately scrutinized and which the Crown is now barred from arguing in court.
WHY A MISTRIAL IS INSUFFICIENT
There are two reasons a mistrial is insufficient. One is that a mistrial was already tried and did not help -- we have already had a mistrial (#150) due to the Crown's insufficient caution to protect the rights of other defendants in this case. The Crown's behavior in no way improved and the trial stalled for several more weeks, creating the situation that this entreaty is responding to in the first place.
Two-- a mistrial is specifically precluded: all relevant laws including SOLA §8 and CCPA §16(1) exactly predict the circumstances of this trial and prescribe a dismissal -- and in the case of CCPA §16(1), the dismissal is required to be with prejudice.
Defendants so entreat the Court.
Nyeogmi Choi
Director, Public Defense
Kingdom of Alexandria
@Zodd @SoggehToast
Your Honor,
There are few provisions in Alexandrian law requiring dismissal of a criminal case prior to adjudication on the merits. However, Defendants observe that two such bright lines have been crossed.
GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL UNDER CCPA §16(1)
There is an infinite number of ways for any purported event not to have happened. The burden of proof is therefore on the prosecution -- to identify a crime and come up with a theory, supported by evidence, corresponding to its elements. The defense is required to rebut each theory up to a reasonable doubt; otherwise it loses.
The Crown's theory, as stated in the complaint, is that Maelzarun's June 9th order created a conspiracy to accomplish some crime (whose overt acts commenced on the 7th, two days earlier). Defendants have repeatedly asked the Crown to relate this to the elements of conspiracy -- in particular, what that crime would have been -- under the expectation that the Crown would describe a mode of fraud which Defendants were supposedly pursuing. The Crown's consistent responses have been to divert to the issue of the Defendants' legal pretrial conduct, to inadmissibly characterize Defendants as criminal in character, and to assert tautologically that its theory of fraud is that fraud would be committed.
In Docket Entry #219, in non-answer to Defendants' questions, the Crown has taken the explicit position that it doesn't have to connect the evidence to any allegations until the defense has no opportunity for rebuttal. Instead, we are apparently required to preemptively rebut every conceivable negative interpretation of over one hundred pages of chatlogs. This is tantamount to proving Defendants' innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Criminal Code and Procedure Act (CCPA) §16(1) states, unequivocally, in its entirety, that "The Crown may never shift the burden of proof onto the player. If the Crown shifts the burden of proof onto the player it is grounds for a dismissal with prejudice. A player may secure this dismissal through entreaty." CCPA §16(1) does not leave room for Defendants or the Crown to seek lesser sanction, nor does it leave room for the Court to craft one -- the law entitles Defendants to dismissal with prejudice.
GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL UNDER SOLA §8
The Statute of Limitations Act (SOLA) §8 creates a strict duty to vigorously prosecute a case, absent explicit and prior leave granted by the Court in the form of an extension, which itself must not be "egregious and unfair to a party in a case". If the filing side in any action either civil or criminal takes no steps in furtherance of the case after seven days, the case shall be dismissed." (emphasis added)
The suspension of SOLA §8 in The Statute of Limitations Extension Act §4(1) is immaterial as explained in §4(1)(a) itself, which provides that "This suspension shall not apply to court proceedings already in session". Since this court proceeding was already in session as of 2025-Dec-23, SOLA §8 unambiguously applies.
No interpretation of the seven day standard favors the prosecution. The last filing of any kind was December 21st, 2025. Creatively, the case was being "furthered" up until the 24-hour objection deadline elapsed on the last act of witness testimony -- but that's eleven days. Subtract Christmas and Christmas Eve as holidays and therefore uncountable? Nine days. New Year's Eve and New Year's Day may of course be regarded as holidays, leaving us with seven days even if all these counterfactual extensions existed.
During this period the Crown had many options to advance the case. They could have asked their witnesses further questions; they could have filed Entreaties of Prompting to speed up the judge; they could have asked the Chancery for a different judge; they could have asked their witnesses to post faster.
As long as the case continues, the Defendants' rights are compromised in at least two ways on constitutional grounds:
- Defendants are guaranteed a speedy trial. (Constitution for the Kingdom of Alexandria, §V(22)(7))
- The defendants' assets are still frozen. Under Alexandria Constitution §V(22)(12), "Every player has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure."
The Crown's request for an injunction initially seemed reasonable to the Court when it said it had evidence proving Defendants were active money launderers engaged in continued scams. (in #39) After the Crown got the injunction it wanted, (#44) it stopped pursuing the allegations altogether, leaving Defendants nothing to rebut.
The issue was not raised in trial until #195, after which the Court ruled the whole matter irrelevant. (#202, objection sustained to question 16) At this point, Defendants' DemocracyCraft and StateCraft assets have been unconstitutionally seized for six months, for reasons that were never adequately scrutinized and which the Crown is now barred from arguing in court.
WHY A MISTRIAL IS INSUFFICIENT
There are two reasons a mistrial is insufficient. One is that a mistrial was already tried and did not help -- we have already had a mistrial (#150) due to the Crown's insufficient caution to protect the rights of other defendants in this case. The Crown's behavior in no way improved and the trial stalled for several more weeks, creating the situation that this entreaty is responding to in the first place.
Two-- a mistrial is specifically precluded: all relevant laws including SOLA §8 and CCPA §16(1) exactly predict the circumstances of this trial and prescribe a dismissal -- and in the case of CCPA §16(1), the dismissal is required to be with prejudice.
Defendants so entreat the Court.
Nyeogmi Choi
Director, Public Defense
Kingdom of Alexandria
@Zodd @SoggehToast
