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

Capt11543

Capt11543

Member
Capt11543
Capt11543
Prime Minister
Joined
Apr 18, 2025
Messages
185
1769057209859.png
IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CRIMINAL ACTION
The Crown, Prosecution

v.

Thritystone, Defendant​
I. CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
Defendant Thritystone conspired to manipulate the results of the January 2026 General Election by offering money to citizens in exchange for a vote for their political party. Thritystone directly offered at least one individual compensation as part of this scheme.

II. PARTIES
  1. The Crown, represented by the Ministry of Justice​
  2. Thritystone​
III. FACTS
(Time zones are in UTC unless otherwise indicated)
  1. The January 2026 General Election began at the dissolution of Parliament on January 15, 2026. The polls opened on January 20, 2026. See Parliament Elections | January 2026 (Ministry of Internal Affairs, 2026).
  2. On or before January 19, 2026, Defendant Thritystone corresponded with WonderRuby. See P-001.
  3. As a result of this correspondence, WonderRuby was offered at least £250 in exchange for voting for the Alexandria National Party. See P-001, P-002
  4. /treasury command records show that WonderRuby received £250 on January 19, 2026 at 3:36 AM from the /pay command. See P-003.
  5. /treasury command records show that Thritystone paid £250 on January 19, 2026 at 3:36 AM from the /pay command. See P-003.
  6. WonderRuby later shared details of their correspondence with Thritystone with Rt. Hon. Internal Minister ConsequencesInc. See P-002.
  7. On January 22, 2026, WonderRuby additionally claimed to have voted for the Alexandria National Party in the election. See P-004.
  8. Thritystone is a candidate on the Alexandria National Party's party list in the election. See Parliament Elections | January 2026 (Ministry of Internal Affairs, 2026).
IV. ARGUMENT
By persuading WonderRuby to commit the immoral act of participating in election manipulation in exchange for compensation, Defendant Thritystone has committed Bribery. See A.P. 01-006 §21(3)(b):
Bribery - A player is guilty of bribery if they persuade someone to commit an illegal or immoral act in exchange for a benefit.
Click to expand...

By engaging in Bribery--an illegal act--to manipulate the outcome of the January 2026 General Election, Defendant Thritystone has committed Election Fraud. See id. at §20(6)(d):
Electoral Fraud - A player is guilty of electoral fraud if they intentionally and illegally alter the outcome of any Alexandrian election as prescribed by law.
Click to expand...

V. CHARGES
Defendant Thritystone:
  • 1 count of Bribery
  • 1 count of Election Fraud
VI. EVIDENCE
Screenshot_2026-01-18.webp
Posted in Discord by WonderRuby
image.webp
2026-01-18_22.36.26.webp
2026-01-18_22.37.13.webp
2026-01-21_23.49.03.png
VII. WITNESSES
  1. WonderRuby
  2. ConsequencesInc

Respectfully submitted,
Capt11543
Crown Counsel
 

Attachments

  • 2026-01-22_00.44.31.png
    2026-01-22_00.44.31.png
    1.8 MB · Views: 13
Last edited:
IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY FOR WARRANT TO SEARCH

I. FACTS
(Times are in UTC unless indicated otherwise)
  1. On January 22, 2026, the Crown received a report via a Ministry of Justice ticket from emilypancakes22, documenting correspondence with an un-charged, alleged co-conspirator. See P-005.
  2. In this correspondence, the alleged co-conspirator offered compensation to emilypancakes22 in exchange for voting for the Alexandria National Party. See P-006.
II. ARGUMENT
  1. The Crown must show that there is probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime in a particular place. See A.P. 01-006 §8(2).
  2. The Crown believes that there is probable cause to suspect that Defendant Thritystone engaged in criminal acts under id. at §21(3)(b) and id. at §20(6)(d). See The Crown v. Thritystone, Case 3 (Mag. Ct., 2026) #1 §III.
  3. The Crown believes that there is probable cause to suspect that Defendant Thritystone is not the only individual who has engaged in these criminal acts. See P-005, P-006.
  4. Each documented instance of these related acts shares a connection to the Alexandria National Party.
  5. The Crown thus believes that there is probable cause to suspect that multiple individuals within the Alexandria National Party have entered into a conspiracy to offer compensation to others in exchange for votes for the Alexandria National Party. This would constitute Conspiracy to Commit Bribery and Conspiracy to Commit Election Fraud. See A.P. 01-006 §19(3).
III. SCOPE OF WARRANT
The Crown seeks a warrant from this Court for access to the following information in furtherance of its investigation into this matter:
  1. All public and private channels within the Alexandria National Party Discord server.
  2. The audit log of the Alexandria National Party Discord Server.
  3. Financial records pertaining to the Alexandria National Party, members of ANP Leadership, candidates running on the ANP Party List in the January 2026 General Election, and any legal entities controlled by the listed individuals and entities.
IV. EVIDENCE
Screenshot 2026-01-22 010337 redacted.png
2026-01-21_20.40.19 redacted.png
2026-01-21_20.40.23 redacted.png
2026-01-21_20.40.25 redacted.png
2026-01-21_20.40.28 redacted.png

Respectfully submitted,
Capt11543
Crown Counsel
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2026-01-22 010337.png
    Screenshot 2026-01-22 010337.png
    473.5 KB · Views: 13
Last edited:
IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF

Your Honor,

This case is a matter of grave national importance: the integrity of our sacred democratic process is at stake. The Crown believes there is probable cause to suspect that the January 2026 General Election is being manipulated by means of bribery at this very moment. The trustworthiness and legitimacy of the results of the election are called into question as a result of the alleged conduct of the Defendant, and any potential co-conspirators.

The Crown therefore beseeches this Court to order that the January 2026 General Election be placed on hold pending review of the integrity of said election.

Respectfully submitted,
Capt11543
Crown Counsel
 
1769092669777.png
IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF ALEXANDRIA
WRIT OF SUMMONS
@Thritystone is required to appear before the Magistrates' Court In the case of
The Crown v. Thritystone, Case 3 (Mag. Ct., 2026).

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons may result in a default judgment based on the known facts of the case.

All parties will make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures (General and Magistrates).​
 
Capt11543 said:
IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF

Your Honor,

This case is a matter of grave national importance: the integrity of our sacred democratic process is at stake. The Crown believes there is probable cause to suspect that the January 2026 General Election is being manipulated by means of bribery at this very moment. The trustworthiness and legitimacy of the results of the election are called into question as a result of the alleged conduct of the Defendant, and any potential co-conspirators.

The Crown therefore beseeches this Court to order that the January 2026 General Election be placed on hold pending review of the integrity of said election.

Respectfully submitted,
Capt11543
Crown Counsel
Click to expand...
1769093830564.png
ORDER (TEMPORARILY) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S ENTREATY FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF
​
Per precedent established by Chancellor Smallfries in Sovereign Kingdom Party v. Crown, Case 9 (Ch. 2025), #9, "To grant a Writ of Emergency Relief, a Claimant must show that they suffer some great harm that is intolerable for a reasonable person to bear under the circumstances". The case brought before this court could have astounding and grave implications for the democratic process, and thus I do believe it satisfies the previously established precedent.

Typically for a matter such at this, I would afford ample opportunity for the defendant to voice their arguments for/against the entreaty. However, due to the January 2026 General Elections ending tomorrow, I am temporarily granting the Entreaty for Emergency Relief now. The January 2026 General Election is hereby suspended until further notice. Know that I do not do this lightly. In order to ensure proper fairness within this court, I shall be affording both parties the opportunity to explain why the Entreaty for Emergency Relief should or should not remain in effect. Afterward, I will issue a final decision on the entreaty.

So ordered,
Magistrate AmityBlamity
 
IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY TO AMEND FILING

Your Honor,

Seeing as this Court has yet to rule on the Crown's application for a search warrant, the Crown seeks permission to amend The Crown v. Thritystone, Case 3 (Mag. Ct., 2026) #2 §III as follows:

III. SCOPE OF WARRANT
The Crown seeks a warrant from this Court for access to the following information in furtherance of its investigation into this matter:
  1. All public and private channels within the Alexandria National Party Discord server.
  2. The audit log of the Alexandria National Party Discord Server.
  3. Financial records pertaining to the Alexandria National Party, members of ANP Leadership, candidates running on the ANP Party List in the January 2026 General Election, and any legal entities controlled by the listed individuals and entities.
Click to expand...

The Crown seeks the opportunity to review transactions connected to the Alexandria National Party in furtherance of its investigation into this matter. The scope of the financial records sought is necessarily broad, as the Crown recognizes that business entities may have been used to obscure transactions related to the alleged conspiracy.

The Crown additionally wishes to correct an erroneous citation in id. at §II(5):

The Crown thus believes that there is probable cause to suspect that multiple individuals within the Alexandria National Party have entered into a conspiracy to offer compensation to others in exchange for votes for the Alexandria National Party. This would constitute Conspiracy to Commit Bribery and Conspiracy to Commit Election Fraud. See id. at A.P. 01-006 §19(3).
Click to expand...

Respectfully submitted,
Capt11543
Crown Counsel
 
Last edited:
IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY FOR CLARIFICATION

AmityBlamity said:
View attachment 1194
ORDER (TEMPORARILY) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S ENTREATY FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF
​
Per precedent established by Chancellor Smallfries in Sovereign Kingdom Party v. Crown, Case 9 (Ch. 2025), #9, "To grant a Writ of Emergency Relief, a Claimant must show that they suffer some great harm that is intolerable for a reasonable person to bear under the circumstances". The case brought before this court could have astounding and grave implications for the democratic process, and thus I do believe it satisfies the previously established precedent.

Typically for a matter such at this, I would afford ample opportunity for the defendant to voice their arguments for/against the entreaty. However, due to the January 2026 General Elections ending tomorrow, I am temporarily granting the Entreaty for Emergency Relief now. The January 2026 General Election is hereby suspended until further notice. Know that I do not do this lightly. In order to ensure proper fairness within this court, I shall be affording both parties the opportunity to explain why the Entreaty for Emergency Relief should or should not remain in effect. Afterward, I will issue a final decision on the entreaty.

So ordered,
Magistrate AmityBlamity
Click to expand...

The Crown requests clarification from this Court on a matter of procedure, in response to this Court's order for each side to argue the merits of the emergency relief issued in The Crown v. Thritystone, Case 3 (Mag. Ct. 2026) #5.

Does this Court wish to hear the Crown's submission immediately, or after the defense has presented itself in court?

Respectfully submitted,
Capt11543
Crown Counsel
 
Capt11543 said:
IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY TO AMEND FILING

Your Honor,

Seeing as this Court has yet to rule on the Crown's application for a search warrant, the Crown seeks permission to amend The Crown v. Thritystone, Case 3 (Mag. Ct., 2026) #2 §III as follows:



The Crown seeks the opportunity to review transactions connected to the Alexandria National Party in furtherance of its investigation into this matter. The scope of the financial records sought is necessarily broad, as the Crown recognizes that business entities may have been used to obscure transactions related to the alleged conspiracy.

The Crown additionally wishes to correct an erroneous citation in id. at §II(5):



Respectfully submitted,
Capt11543
Crown Counsel
Click to expand...
Permission to amend is granted. I'll make a ruling on the entreaty for warrant to search after the defendant has appeared.
 
Capt11543 said:
IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY FOR CLARIFICATION



The Crown requests clarification from this Court on a matter of procedure, in response to this Court's order for each side to argue the merits of the emergency relief issued in The Crown v. Thritystone, Case 3 (Mag. Ct. 2026) #5.

Does this Court wish to hear the Crown's submission immediately, or after the defense has presented itself in court?

Respectfully submitted,
Capt11543
Crown Counsel
Click to expand...
I will ask for the Crown's submission after the defendant has made themselves known.
 
ANSWER TO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT


I. APPEARANCE

Defendant Thritystone, by and through counsel, hereby appears before this Court in response to the Writ of Summons issued on January 22, 2026.


II. PLEA

Defendant Thritystone pleads NOT GUILTY to all charges:

  1. Not Guilty — Bribery (1 count)
  2. Not Guilty — Electoral Fraud (1 count)

III. RESPONSE TO FACTS

  1. The January 2026 General Election began at the dissolution of Parliament on January 15, 2026, and polls opened on January 20, 2026. ADMITTED.
  2. On or before January 19, 2026, Defendant Thritystone corresponded with WonderRuby. ADMITTED.
  3. As a result of this correspondence, WonderRuby was offered at least £250 in exchange for voting for the Alexandria National Party. DENIED AS CHARACTERIZED. The nature and purpose of any payment are disputed.
  4. /treasury command records show that WonderRuby received £250 on January 19, 2026 at 3:36 AM from the /pay command. ADMITTED.
  5. /treasury command records show that Thritystone paid £250 on January 19, 2026 at 3:36 AM from the /pay command. ADMITTED.
  6. WonderRuby later shared details of their correspondence with Thritystone with Rt. Hon. Internal Minister ConsequencesInc. NO CONTEST. Defendant lacks personal knowledge.
  7. On January 22, 2026, WonderRuby additionally claimed to have voted for the Alexandria National Party in the election. NO CONTEST. Defendant lacks personal knowledge.
  8. Thritystone is a candidate on the Alexandria National Party's party list in the election. ADMITTED.

IV. DEFENSES

A. The Charge of Bribery Fails as a Matter of Law

The Crown's complaint fails to establish the elements of Bribery under A.P. 01-006 §21(3)(b):

"A player is guilty of bribery if they persuade someone to commit an illegal or immoral act in exchange for a benefit."
Click to expand...
The alleged "act" here is voting for the Alexandria National Party. However, voting for a registered political party is neither illegal nor immoral:

  1. Voting is a Constitutional Right. The K.A. Const. § V Art. 22(2) expressly provides: "Every citizen has the right to vote in elections." An act protected as a constitutional right cannot, by definition, be "immoral." The Constitution itself declares voting to be a fundamental freedom guaranteed to every citizen.
  2. The Secret Ballot Protects Voter Motivation. K.A. Const. § V Art. 22(3) guarantees: "Every citizen has the right to secret ballot in elections." The secret ballot exists precisely because the state has no business inquiring into WHY a citizen voted as they did. A voter's motivation—whether policy, personal relationships, or other considerations—is constitutionally protected from scrutiny.
  3. Casting a Vote for Any Lawful Party is Legal. Voting for ANP, or any registered political party, is a lawful exercise of democratic rights. The act itself cannot be transformed into an "immoral act" based on the voter's subjective motivation.
  4. The Crown's Interpretation Renders the Statute Absurd. If the Crown's reading were correct, any campaign contribution, voter incentive, door prize at a rally, or promise of policy benefits would constitute "bribery." This interpretation would criminalize ordinary political activity that occurs in every democratic society.
The Crown bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that voting for ANP constitutes an "illegal or immoral act." See A.P. 01-006 §4(10). It cannot meet this burden because voting—for any party—is the exercise of a constitutional right, not an immoral act.

B. The Charge of Electoral Fraud Fails as a Matter of Law

The Crown's complaint fails to establish the elements of Electoral Fraud under A.P. 01-006 §20(6)(d):

"A player is guilty of electoral fraud if they intentionally and illegally alter the outcome of any Alexandrian election as prescribed by law."
Click to expand...
This charge fails for multiple independent reasons:

  1. No Illegal Act. Electoral Fraud requires that the defendant act "illegally." The only alleged illegality is the bribery charge. If bribery fails—as it must—then Electoral Fraud necessarily fails as well.
  2. No Outcome Altered. The January 2026 General Election has not concluded. This Court suspended the election before any results were announced. There is no "outcome" that could have been "altered." One cannot alter something that does not yet exist.
  3. Causation Not Established. Even assuming arguendo a payment occurred, the Crown has not established that one vote among many in a proportional representation election "altered the outcome." The Crown must prove causation beyond a reasonable doubt. See A.P. 01-006 §4(10).

Respectfully submitted,

Nim

Counsel for Defendant Thritystone

January 23, 2026
 
OPPOSITION TO ENTREATY FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF

​
I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant Thritystone respectfully opposes the continuation of the temporary emergency relief granted in The Crown v. Thritystone, Case 3 (Mag. Ct., 2026) #5. The indefinite suspension of the January 2026 General Election is an extraordinary remedy that causes grave and ongoing harm to the democratic process, violates the constitutional rights of every citizen, and is grossly disproportionate to the allegations at issue.

​
II. LEGAL STANDARD

This Court correctly cited the standard established in Sovereign Kingdom Party v. Crown, Case 9 (Ch. 2025) #9:

"To grant a Writ of Emergency Relief, a Claimant must show that they suffer some great harm that is intolerable for a reasonable person to bear under the circumstances."

The Crown has not met this burden. To the contrary, the emergency relief itself is causing intolerable harm to the Kingdom and its citizens.

​
III. ARGUMENT

A. The Suspension Violates Citizens' Constitutional Right to Vote

The K.A. Const. § V Art. 22(2) guarantees:

"Every citizen has the right to vote in elections..."

The indefinite suspension of the January 2026 General Election deprives every citizen of Alexandria of this constitutional right. While this Court acted in good faith to preserve election integrity, the continued suspension is now the greater threat to constitutional governance.

The Constitution permits only "such reasonable limits prescribed by law that are justified in a free and democratic society." See K.A. Const. § V Art. 22. Halting an entire national election based on unproven allegations against one candidate is not a "reasonable limit"—it is a complete denial of the franchise.

B. The Crown's Alleged Harm is Speculative; The Harm From Suspension is Actual

The Crown argues that "the integrity of our sacred democratic process is at stake." But this Court must weigh the actual harms on both sides.

The Crown's alleged harm is that one voter allegedly received £250, that election results "might" be compromised, and that there may be some speculative impact on seat allocation. These harms are hypothetical and rest on unproven allegations.

The harm from continued suspension, by contrast, is concrete and severe: every citizen of Alexandria is denied their constitutional right to vote; the election is halted indefinitely; governance is guaranteed to be disrupted; and the presumption of innocence is violated.

The Crown's harm is hypothetical and unproven. The harm to the Kingdom from suspending its national election is real, immediate, and compounding with each passing day.

C. The Remedy is Grossly Disproportionate

The Crown alleges that one payment of £250 to one voter justifies suspending the entire January 2026 General Election. This is akin to cancelling a national referendum because one citizen received a campaign leaflet.

Even accepting the Crown's allegations as true arguendo:

  • One vote among potentially dozens or hundreds of voters does not "alter the outcome" of a proportional representation election;
  • The election uses the Single Transferable Party Vote system under A.P. 018 §8, where individual votes are distributed across party allocations—one vote's impact is diluted;
  • No evidence suggests widespread fraud affecting the overall integrity of results.
D. Less Restrictive Remedies Exist

If this Court is concerned about election integrity, alternatives exist that do not disenfranchise every citizen:

  1. Allow the election to conclude, then invalidate specific fraudulent votes if proven at trial;
  2. Order a re-vote for affected individuals only;
  3. Disqualify Defendant personally from taking a seat, without halting the entire election;
  4. Await trial outcome before taking remedial action on election results.
The Alexandrian Electoral Act §13 contemplates exactly this approach:

"Where electoral results are flagged for fraudulent behavior, the Government will be responsible for contesting the votes in Court."
Click to expand...

The statute envisions post-election adjudication—not pre-emptive suspension based on unproven allegations.

E. The Presumption of Innocence Must Be Respected

Defendant Thritystone has not been convicted of any crime. He has pleaded Not Guilty. The continued suspension of the election treats the Crown's allegations as established fact, punishing the Defendant—and the entire Kingdom—before any trial has occurred.

The burden of proof rests with the Crown to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See A.P. 01-006 §4(10). Emergency relief should not be used to circumvent this fundamental protection.

F. This Sets a Dangerous Precedent

If elections can be suspended based solely on a criminal complaint against one candidate, any future election can be frozen by filing charges—proven or not. This creates a mechanism for election interference far more damaging than the conduct alleged here.

Any party could halt any election simply by accusing an opposing candidate of wrongdoing. The integrity of democracy requires that elections proceed unless extraordinary circumstances—far beyond what is alleged here—justify suspension.

​
IV. CONCLUSION

The Crown has not demonstrated "great harm that is intolerable for a reasonable person to bear." The suspension of the January 2026 General Election causes far greater harm than the allegations it purports to address—it denies every citizen their constitutional right to vote.

WHEREFORE, Defendant Thritystone respectfully requests that this Court:

  1. LIFT the temporary emergency relief immediately;
  2. ORDER the January 2026 General Election to resume forthwith; and
  3. Allow this matter to proceed through normal adjudication without further prejudice to the democratic process or the constitutional rights of Alexandria's citizens.
​
Respectfully submitted,

Nim

Counsel for Defendant Thritystone

January 23, 2026
 
IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA

CRIMINAL ACTION

The Crown, Prosecution

v.

Thritystone, Defendant

​
OPPOSITION TO ENTREATY FOR WARRANT TO SEARCH

​
I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant Thritystone opposes the Crown's application for a search warrant as set forth in The Crown v. Thritystone, Case 3 (Mag. Ct., 2026) #2 and as amended in The Crown v. Thritystone, Case 3 (Mag. Ct., 2026) #6. The requested scope is vastly overbroad, violates the constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure, would expose attorney-client privileged communications, and constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition into the private affairs of an entire political party.

​
II. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Probable Cause Requirement

Under A.P. 01-006 §8(2):

"To receive a search warrant, a peace officer must obtain certification from a magistrate that there is probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime exists in a particular place."

B. Constitutional Protection Against Unreasonable Search

K.A. Const. § V Art. 22(12) guarantees:

"Every player has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure."

C. Attorney-Client Privilege

A.P. 01-008 §9(1)(b)(i) establishes:

"Attorney-Client Privilege - Except in cases where a person's life is at risk... a person's conversations regarding a legal case are privileged and inadmissible in court."

​
III. THE REQUESTED SCOPE IS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY OVERBROAD

The Crown seeks access to:

  1. All public and private channels within the Alexandria National Party Discord server;
  2. The audit log of the ANP Discord server; and
  3. Financial records pertaining to the Alexandria National Party, members of ANP Leadership, candidates running on the ANP Party List in the January 2026 General Election, and "any legal entities controlled by the listed individuals and entities."
This request is not a targeted search for evidence of a specific crime. It is a wholesale seizure of an entire political party's internal communications and finances, in violation of K.A. Const. § V Art. 22(12).

​
IV. ARGUMENT

A. The Warrant Violates the Constitutional Right Against Unreasonable Search

The K.A. Const. § V Art. 22(12) guarantees that every player shall "be secure against unreasonable search and seizure." A search is unreasonable when it:

  • Lacks particularity as to what is being searched;
  • Extends beyond the scope of probable cause; or
  • Invades the privacy of persons not implicated in wrongdoing.
The Crown's request fails on all three counts. The request for "all public and private channels" lacks any particularity—it sweeps in channels wholly unrelated to elections. The request for records of "Members of ANP Leadership" is undefined—who qualifies as "leadership"? The request extends to "all candidates on the party list," individuals who are not accused of any wrongdoing. And the request for "any legal entities controlled by listed individuals" is unlimited in scope—it could encompass any personal asset, business, or holding.

B. The Warrant Would Violate Attorney-Client Privilege

The ANP Discord server contains channels where party leadership communicates with legal counsel regarding legal matters, including this very case. These communications are protected by attorney-client privilege under A.P. 01-008 §9(1)(b)(i).

The privilege applies because:

  1. Communications exist between attorneys and clients (ANP leadership);
  2. The communications regard legal cases and legal advice;
  3. No exception applies—no person's life is at risk.
At minimum, any warrant must exclude all channels containing attorney-client communications. The Crown cannot be granted access to privileged defense strategy discussions. To do so would fundamentally undermine the right to counsel and the adversarial system itself.

This Court should require the Crown to identify, with specificity, which channels it seeks access to, and should categorically exclude any channel used for legal consultations.

C. Probable Cause is Limited to One Transaction

The Crown's evidence establishes, at most, probable cause regarding:

  • One payment of £250
  • From Thritystone to WonderRuby
  • On January 19, 2026
This narrow factual basis does not support searching:

  • Every channel in an entire political party's Discord server;
  • Financial records of every candidate and party leader; or
  • "Any legal entities" controlled by anyone associated with ANP.
D. The Crown Admits This is a Fishing Expedition

The Crown's own filing reveals its true purpose. See The Crown v. Thritystone, Case 3 (Mag. Ct., 2026) #2 §II(5):

"The Crown thus believes that there is probable cause to suspect that multiple individuals within the Alexandria National Party have entered into a conspiracy to offer compensation to others in exchange for votes..."

The Crown is not seeking evidence of the crimes charged against this Defendant. It is seeking evidence of uncharged crimes against uncharged individuals. This is the textbook definition of a fishing expedition.

Under A.P. 01-006 §8(2), warrants require probable cause that evidence of a crime exists "in a particular place." The Crown cannot use a warrant in this case to conduct a general investigation of the entire ANP.

E. Third-Party Privacy and Association Rights

The requested warrant would expose:

  • Private communications of ANP members who are not charged with any crime;
  • Financial records of individuals not accused of any wrongdoing; and
  • Internal party deliberations protected by freedom of association under K.A. Const. § V Art. 22(9).
The Crown has not established probable cause as to any of these third parties. Their constitutional rights should not be violated based on allegations against one individual.

F. The Financial Records Request is Effectively Unlimited

The amended request for "financial records pertaining to... any legal entities controlled by the listed individuals" provides no limiting principle. This could encompass:

  • Personal bank accounts unrelated to politics;
  • Business ventures having nothing to do with elections; and
  • Any investment, asset, or holding.
The Crown's justification—that "business entities may have been used to obscure transactions"—is pure speculation. See The Crown v. Thritystone, Case 3 (Mag. Ct., 2026) #6. Speculation does not establish probable cause.

​
V. ALTERNATIVE: A NARROWLY TAILORED WARRANT

If this Court finds that some search is warranted, Defendant respectfully requests the scope be narrowed to:

  1. Communications within the ANP Discord specifically referencing payments, compensation, or incentives related to voting in the January 2026 General Election—excluding any channels used for attorney-client communications;
  2. /treasury records showing payments from Thritystone to any individual during the election period (January 15–23, 2026).
This narrowed scope would address any legitimate investigative need without:

  • Violating the constitutional protection against unreasonable search;
  • Exposing privileged attorney-client communications; or
  • Authorizing a dragnet through an entire political organization.
​
VI. CONCLUSION

The Crown's warrant application is unconstitutionally overbroad, would violate attorney-client privilege, lacks particularity, and seeks to investigate uncharged crimes against uncharged individuals based on speculation.

WHEREFORE, Defendant Thritystone respectfully requests that this Court:

  1. DENY the warrant application in full; or
  2. In the alternative, NARROW the warrant substantially to:
    • Exclude all channels containing attorney-client privileged communications;
    • Limit Discord access to communications specifically about vote-related payments;
    • Limit financial records to Thritystone's /treasury records during the election period only.
​
Respectfully submitted,

Nim

Counsel for Defendant Thritystone

January 23, 2026
 
As the Defendant has provided their response to the Entreaty for Emergency Relief, I ask the Crown provide theirs within the next forty-eight hours. I'll rule on the warrant shortly.

@Capt11543
 
Date.25/01/2026
Docket. 3 Mag. 2026​

IN THE HONOURABLE MAGISTRATE
OF THE SOVEREIGN KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA​

BETWEEN
the Crown​
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Applicants​

v.
Thritystone​
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Respondents​
The applicant hereby respectfully alleges that;

1. I would like to first and foremost notify the court that the Solicitor General, as of the public announcement has assumed leadership of this prosecution and along with @Capt11543 and @SoggehToast, will continue the prosecution.

Contents of the "OPPOSITION TO ENTREATY FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF"

2. The entire filing, the length of two and a half of my standard A4 print pages, sets out 6 "arguments" against the emergency relief. In the classic style of the famous writer chat gippity, the six arguments make clear mistakes of fact, ridiculous comparisons and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what an Emergency Relief is for. If the counsel of the respondent wishes to claim they have personally written this filing, I would argue that it would say more about their legal capabilities than it would the validity of this claim. As a former federal judge in the commonwealth, I know the importance of brevity, and would normally not find the necessity in addressing each claim, but I wish to show the scale and absurdity of the situation, and seek that the hon. magistrate address this issue.

Response to Claims & Arguments

3. "A. The Suspension Violates Citizens' Constitutional Right to Vote" The respondents claim that the emergency relief violates the citizens right to vote in elections. While whether or not this means that they have a right of the election/referendum's procedural integrity and continuation is under debate in Ref. Rights Collective v Crown, Case 11 (Ch. 2025), for now, lets assume (as the "writer" of the respondents filing would say) arguendo, that it does. This would mean that their right also extends to the fact that the election in which they have voted was fair and free of any illegal influence. In that case, in suspicion of alleged election fraud, it would also be a violation of every voter's right to allow the election to finalise and the tabulated results be enacted.
4. "B. The Crown's Alleged Harm is Speculative; The Harm From Suspension is Actual". Firstly, the respondent's claim that this alleged harm only harms the crown (or the governing party), while the emergency relief hurts the entire citizenry is an unfounded comparison as stated previously (see 3). Additionally, not only has the crown provided evidence of what the respondent calls "alleged" harm, there are further investigations into other cases of this systematic infraction, which the crown will provide evidence of throughout the discovery process. The Emergency Relief was filed, as it says on the tin, in an Emergency.
5. "C. The Remedy is Grossly Disproportionate" Leaving aside the humour of the respondent claiming that "cancelling" an election over one payment to one voter is akin to "cancelling a national referendum because one citizen received a campaign leaflet", and the returning usage of the latin term "arguendo" in a masterful reference to its prior presence, I find it satisfactory to simply refer to points 3 and 4 in response to this.
6. "D. Less Restrictive Remedies Exist" This section is the masterfully written piece de resistance. The Respondent claims that there are less effective remedies instead of pausing the elections. Lets see the proposals. First proposal is to allow the election to conclude and invalidate specific votes. This would require us to identify which votes were done by whom, which if possible would be in violation of the right to a secret ballot. The second proposition of revote for the affected individuals would do the same. The third demonstrates a misunderstanding of how our electoral system works, and the fourth one literally translates to "throw out the emergency relief" while being called, as the title would imply, a "less restrictive remedy". The writer then goes on to cite the line "Where electoral results are flagged for fraudulent behaviour, the Government will be responsible for contesting the votes in Court" with the last two words highlighted, then states "The statute envisions post election adjudication, not pre-emptive suspension based on unproven allegations" Putting aside the fact that the respondents could possibly be in charge of the government post election, I would like to ask the respondent where they have found such claims within that sentence, because God help me I cannot find it. Why did they highlight the "in Court" part? We are in court, if they have not noticed. I hope I am getting across my frustration quite clearly. These nonsensical lines were printed on paper with ink. People have to read it when you submit things to the court.
7. "E. The Presumption of Innocence Must Be Respected" This honestly rivals argument D. The respondent claims that because they have not been convicted of a crime, the Emergency Relief unfairly punishes them without trial. Considering both that firstly; emergency reliefs are always filed and ruled upon before a verdict, and secondly; that the emergency relief is chiefly, if not always something the respondent would not want, if we take the argument of the respondent arguendo, all emergency reliefs are in violation of the presumption of innocence and the mere existence is rendered nugatory. (How do you like them apples?)
8. "F. This Sets a Dangerous Precedent" The Applicant will not even entertain this one. If they believe this is a frivolous lawsuit (which is the entirety of the claim), we ask the respondent to go ahead and provide more substantive arguments in favour of it.

Conclusion
9. I would like to firstly apologise to the honourable magistrate for the fact that they must read this entire argumentation responding to something that is so baseless and without merit. I have at parts lost my temper as I saw the filing as an insult to this hobby and profession which has grown to the point of me studying it as my major. That is all I have to say.​


SIGNED. Sec. ColonelKai. Solicitor General
Office of Litigation, 5601 MoJ Building, New Hamilton
This 25th of January 2026.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO THE MAGISTRATE FOR REVIEW.
magblink.gif

 
ORDER REAFFIRMING PLAINTIFF'S ENTREATY FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF​

Having reviewed arguments presented by both parties, I am satisfied that there is sufficient cause to keep the entreaty for emergency relief in place. The defendant is of course afforded the presumption of innocence, and it will be on the Crown to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the defendant is indeed guilty of the crimes they have alleged. However, an initial examination of all materials presented to the Court, I believe it would be premature to remove the entreaty before the conclusion of the trial.

I will iterate that it brings me no joy to suspend the elections in this way. Furthermore, I will encourage both the Crown and the defendant to proceed with the court case as quickly as possible, only demanding extensions when absolutely necessary, so that we might reach the verdict stage in a timely manner and ensure that the democratic process can continue in a swift, orderly manner.

So ordered,
Magistrate AmityBlamity
 
We shall now enter Discovery, which will last 72 hours or end sooner if both parties agree to such.
 
Capt11543 said:
IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY FOR WARRANT TO SEARCH

I. FACTS
(Times are in UTC unless indicated otherwise)
  1. On January 22, 2026, the Crown received a report via a Ministry of Justice ticket from emilypancakes22, documenting correspondence with an un-charged, alleged co-conspirator. See P-005.
  2. In this correspondence, the alleged co-conspirator offered compensation to emilypancakes22 in exchange for voting for the Alexandria National Party. See P-006.
II. ARGUMENT
  1. The Crown must show that there is probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime in a particular place. See A.P. 01-006 §8(2).
  2. The Crown believes that there is probable cause to suspect that Defendant Thritystone engaged in criminal acts under id. at §21(3)(b) and id. at §20(6)(d). See The Crown v. Thritystone, Case 3 (Mag. Ct., 2026) #1 §III.
  3. The Crown believes that there is probable cause to suspect that Defendant Thritystone is not the only individual who has engaged in these criminal acts. See P-005, P-006.
  4. Each documented instance of these related acts shares a connection to the Alexandria National Party.
  5. The Crown thus believes that there is probable cause to suspect that multiple individuals within the Alexandria National Party have entered into a conspiracy to offer compensation to others in exchange for votes for the Alexandria National Party. This would constitute Conspiracy to Commit Bribery and Conspiracy to Commit Election Fraud. See A.P. 01-006 §19(3).
III. SCOPE OF WARRANT
The Crown seeks a warrant from this Court for access to the following information in furtherance of its investigation into this matter:
  1. All public and private channels within the Alexandria National Party Discord server.
  2. The audit log of the Alexandria National Party Discord Server.
  3. Financial records pertaining to the Alexandria National Party, members of ANP Leadership, candidates running on the ANP Party List in the January 2026 General Election, and any legal entities controlled by the listed individuals and entities.
IV. EVIDENCE
View attachment 1186
View attachment 1187
View attachment 1188
View attachment 1189
View attachment 1190

Respectfully submitted,
Capt11543
Crown Counsel
Click to expand...
I'm going to grant the warrant IN PART. As this case concerns Thritystone, it would be inappropriate to extend the scope of the warrant to encompass the entirety of the ANP. If the Crown wishes to investigate possible crimes relating to the ANP, I invite them to file such a warrant with the Judiciary of Alexandria and to present their arguments as to why such a warrant should be granted.

I hereby order the Defendant to turn over the following:
  1. All communication made by Thritystone within the ANP Discord (the names of other individuals Thritystone might be replying to can be censored) in public and private channels that do not violate attorney-client privilege.
  2. All communication and images discussing compensation or monetary rewards in regards to voting in the January 2026 elections.
  3. A list of legal entities currently owned by Thritystone, or those Thritystone holds a majority stake in.
  4. The financial records of all legal entities currently owned by Thritystone.
  5. Thritystone's personal financial records.

I also hereby order the Defendant and those representing them to preserve any and all potential evidence, included but not limited to Discord messages, written communication, internal documentation, financial statements, audio recordings, and video recordings, until such time the trial has concluded.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nim
NOTICE OF FILING

Defendant respectfully notifies this Court that an Entreaty of Removal has been filed in the Chancery, challenging this Court's jurisdiction to order the suspension of the January 2026 General Election.

Defendant does not challenge this Court's jurisdiction over the underlying criminal charges, which may proceed.

Defendant requests that any further proceedings relating to the emergency relief be stayed pending the Chancery's ruling on jurisdiction.

​
Nim

Counsel for Defendant Thritystone
 
ENTREATY FOR CLARIFICATION ON EVIDENCE DELIVERY

​
Your Honor,

Defendant is working to comply with this Court's Order regarding the production of Thritystone's communications within the ANP Discord. However, the volume of materials is substantial, potentially exceeding 400 images.

Defendant will do its best to comply within the time allotted, but respectfully requests clarification on the method of delivery.

Rather than uploading several hundred images directly to the forum thread, would the Court permit the Defense to submit an archive file (e.g., .zip) containing the materials? This would preserve the evidence while avoiding an unwieldy thread.

Defendant is not seeking to delay production, only to clarify the appropriate format.

​
Nim

Counsel for Defendant Thritystone
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top