Lawsuit: Pending bernard_madoff v. Crown, Case 5 (Mag. Ct., 2026)

[ConsequencesInc]

IN THE HONOURABLE MAGISTRATE OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CIVIL ACTION

Case No.: 5

BETWEEN:

bernard_madoff
Plaintiff

v.

THE CROWN OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
Defendant


I. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT AND VENUE

1. This Court has jurisdiction over this suit pursuant to §14 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Alexandria which vests judicial power in the courts to interpret and administer the law.

2. The Magistrate Court is the proper venue for this suit as §16 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Alexandria grants this court jurisdiction over all civil and criminal matters.


II. PARTIES

1. bernard_maddoff (also referred to as the "Plaintiff") is an individual seeking damages due to the immense emotional distress, illegal detainment, and grevious violation of his Constitutional rights.

2. The Crown of the Kingdom of Alexandria (also referred to as the "Defendant" or "the Crown"), as the employer of Minister of Justice Soggehtoast, whom was acting in his official government capacity as a particular individual and Peace Officer during this incident. Under §7 (1) of the New Hamilton Police Department Code of Conduct, employees acting on behalf of the Ministry may not be the subject of litigation. This means the Crown, representing the governmental interests of the Ministry of Justice, is the proper counterparty of this suit.


III. FACTS
(All times are in UTC-06)

1. At around 9pm on March 11th, 2026, bernard_madoff entered the plot of c-7-high-st owned by MrRoyaltys.
2. At 9:17pm, while bernard_madoff was enjoying his peaceful assembly time as a particular individual on the publicly accessible plot, Peace Officer and Minister of Justice SoggehToast began to unironically break the peace by systematically and repeatedly assaulting and murdering the Plaintiff bernard_madoff.
3. As benard_madoff was enjoying his time on the plot once again without being attacked, MrRoyaltys at 9:32pm banned bernard_madoff, PrestiegeIX and ASexualDinosaur from the plot.
4. At 9:35pm, while still on the plot, and not having been properly notified or warned in-game by the Plot Owner MrRoyaltys or Peace Officer present, the Minister of Justice SoggehToast without proper probable cause or notice assaulted and then improperly detained and removed bernard_madoff from c-7-high-st.
5. Not knowing he was being detained, berrnad_madoff under the assumption that this was police brutality and not knowing he was being arrested, attempted to flee to protect his life and flee to safety via teleportation. After which he was again improperly detained without probable cause by being uncuffed and re-cuffed again by Peace Officer and particular individual SoggehToast.
6. At 9:38pm, after languishing in custody without any information, the Plaintiff was finally informed of his rights and charge.
7. The Plaintiff was jailed for 10 minutes, without ever being convicted of or pleading guilty to Trespassing.
8. The Plaintiff was never and has never been legally convicted of, charged with, or admitted guilt to Trespassing.
9. The Crown, as employer of the Minister of Justice SoggehToast who was acting in his official capacity as a Peace Officer with the Ministry of Jusice, is liable for the actions here within that SogggehToast took during this particular incident.


IV. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF:

COUNT I: VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
1. Among the many other procedural deviations, unlawful acts, and undue harm done to the Plaintiff, a major thread that runs through them all is the wonton violation of the Plaintiff's Constitutional Rights.
2. §22 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Alexandria outlines the various rights and freedoms of Alexandrian Citizens, including the right to peacefully assemble, 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 brought against them, the right to be equal before the law, and right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof.
3. The Plaintiff's right to peacefully assemble was violated when he was violently removed from c-7-high-st.
4. The Plaintiff's right to a speedy and fair trial was violated when he was unlawfully detained and jailed without a trial by the Crown.
5. The Plaintiff's right to be equal before the law was violated when he was punished without a trial.
6. The Plaintiff's right to life, liberty and security was violated when he was assaulted, murdered and unlawfully jailed by an agent acting on behalf of the Crown.
7. Due to these egregious violation of the Plaintiff's rights, the Plaintiff is seeking £20,000 in compensatory redress for the overall violation of his Constitutional Rights by the Crown.

COUNT II: EXCESSIVE USE OF FORCE
1. During the time leading upto and during the course of the Plaintiff's unlawful detainment, he was subject to abuse by extension of the crown as a particular individual, Minister of Justice SoggehToast.
2. These abuses of the plaintiff include Assault and Murder, which under A.P. 01-006 | Criminal Code and Procedure Act are considered to be a violent misdemeanor and felony offense respectively.
3. Due to having these crimes being committed against him by the Crown, the Plaintiff is seeking compensatory redress equvialent to the maximum fine for one count of each offense under the Criminal Code and Procedure Act: £1,000 and £5,000 respectively for Assault and Murder, totaling £6,000.

COUNT III: UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT
1. Under § 20 (5)(b) of A.P. 01-006 | Criminal Code and Procedure Act, the maximum punishment for Trespassing is 10 minutes in Jail.
2. Under § 9 (1) of A.P. 01-006 | Criminal Code and Procedure Act, a peace officer may only summarily issue a punishment as described if both sides agree a crime occurred.
3. The Plaintiff has never been convicted of, charged with or admitted to being guilty of Trespassing, meaning his jailing was unwarranted and unlawful.
4. By jailing the Plaintiff without arraignment, formal charges, and a trial, the Crown not only violated proper procedure and due process of the courts as the proper judges of guilt of criminal acts, but additionally violated the Plaintiff's right to liberty, a speed and fair trial, as well as the right to be equal under the law as previously mentioned in Count I of this section.
5. Due to being unlawfully imprisoned, the Plaintiff is seeking £2,000 in compensatory redress per minute of being unlawfully jailed, totaling £20,000 for the 10 minutes he spent unlawfully jailed.

COUNT IV: EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
1. The Plaintiff, as a result of the actions taken by the Crown, was unduly harmed and suffered extreme emotional distress and pain as a result of the unlawful wonton actions taken by the crown as described above.
2. As a new player and an innovator with a childlike sense of play and wonder, the Plaintiff bernard_madoff no longer feels safe to walk the streets of Alexandria without being harassed and harangued once again by a renegade Peace Officer under the protection and authority off the Crown to further deprive his Constitutional Rights.
3. Due to this ongoing distress, pain and suffering, the Plaintiff seeks £6,000 in compensatory redress for his ongoing needs going forward.


V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
With the above claims for relief in mind, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Honourable Court:

1. Award all compensatory damages to the Plaintiff as discussed in the Claims for Relief, totaling an amount of £52,000.
2. Award the Plaintiff's costs for this suit.
3. Award the Plaintiff with punitive damages in an amount that the court deems fit.
4. Grant further and other relief as the court deems fit.


Respectfully Submitted,

ConsequencesInc
3/25/2026


Proof of Representation of the Plaintiff:

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[Gribble19]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
WRIT OF SUMMONS


The Crown's rightfully appointed counsel is commanded to appear before the Magistrates Court of the Kingdom of Alexandria in

Case 5 (Mag Ct., 2026)

bernard_madoff
Plaintiff

v.

The Crown
Defendant

They are hereby required to do so within seventy-two (72) hours. Failure to do so may result in a default judgment.

So ordered,
Magistrate Gribble19​

 

[Capt11543]

IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
RESPONSE TO SUMMONS

Checking in for the Crown, Your Honor.

Respectfully submitted,
Capt11543
Crown Counsel

 

[Gribble19]

@Capt11543
The Defendant shall have 48 hours from now to file their Answer to Complaint.

 

[Capt11543]

IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY FOR CONTINUANCE

Your Honor, the Crown has been preparing its brief, but this Counsel is visiting relatives IRL and I suspect I won't be finished with the brief by the deadline.

The Crown humbly requests a 24-hour continuance.

Respectfully submitted,
Capt11543
Crown Counsel

 

[Gribble19]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
WRIT OF CONTINUANCE

​

The Court has considered the Entreaty for Continuance filed by the Defendant in #5. The Court finds the requested extension reasonable and as such shall grant it.

Accordingly,
1. The Crown shall be granted a 24-hour continuance to file their Answer to Complaint.
2. The Crown shall now have 72 hours from #4 to file their Answer to Complaint.

So ordered,
Magistrate Gribble19​

 

[Capt11543]

IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT

I. RESPONSES TO THE FACTS

1. The Crown AFFIRMS that the Plaintiff entered c-7-high-st, owned by MrRoyaltys, around 3AM UTC
2. The Crown -
   • DENIES that the Plaintiff was exercising their right to peacefully assemble
   • NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES the alleged conduct of the Minister of Justice at 3:17 AM UTC
3. The Crown AFFIRMS that the Plaintiff was banned by the owner from entering the plot at 3:35 AM UTC
4. The Crown -
   • DENIES that the owner of the plot did not properly inform the Plaintiff that they were banned from the plot
   • AFFIRMS that the Minister arrested the Plaintiff and removed them from the property
   • DENIES that the Minister lacked probable cause to detain and remove the Plaintiff
   • NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES any other alleged conduct of the Minister
5. The Crown -
   • NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that the Plaintiff attempted to flee the scene
   • AFFIRMS that during the arrest, the Minister accidentally uncuffed the Plaintiff, which necessitated the Minister to re-cuff the Plaintiff to continue the arrest
   • NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES the Plaintiff's mental state at the time
6. The Crown AFFIRMS that at 3:38 AM UTC, the Plaintiff, while jailed, was informed of the charges against him by the Minister
7. The Crown AFFIRMS that the Plaintiff was jailed for 10 minutes on the day of the incident
8. The Crown AFFIRMS that, to date, the Plaintiff has not been convicted of or pled guilty to Tresspassing, nor has a criminal complaint been filed against the Plaintiff
9. The Crown -
   • AFFIRMS that the Crown may be held liable for misconduct committed by a Ministry of Justice in the course of their official duties, but
   • DENIES that the Minister of Justice was acting in the course of his official duties during the entire alleged incident.

II. DEFENSES

1. The Minister of Justice had probable cause to arrest the Plaintiff. By the time the Minister of Justice placed the Plaintiff under arrest, the Minister had observed that the Plaintiff had entered the plot c-7-high-st., had been asked to leave and never return by the plot's owner, and had failed to leave after being asked. After observing this, the Minister possessed probable cause to suspect that the Plaintiff committed the criminal offense of Trespassing.
   
   Trespassing is defined as follows by A.P. 01-006 | Criminal Code and Procedure Act (the "CCPA") §20(5)(b):
   

   (b) Trespassing - A player is guilty of trespassing if they enter the property of another without their consent, or after obtaining consent enter or fail to leave the property of another after being asked to leave and never return. This subsection shall not apply if, after obtaining consent to enter, the player has not been asked to leave and never return in the past year.

   The standard for arresting a player is established by id. at §7(2):
   

   (2) To arrest a player, a peace officer must possess probable cause to suspect an individual committed a crime.

   And probable cause is defined by id. at §4(8):
   

   (8) "Probable Cause" shall refer to a standard of evidence which would lead an individual to believe something probably happened. It is lower than the balance of the probabilities.

   
   Since the Plaintiff had been asked to leave and never return by the owner of c-7-high-st, the Minister observed that any consent which may have previously existed was revoked at that time. Additionally, the Minister observed that the plot was being used for a private, commercial purpose, and, by the Plaintiff's conduct, that he was likely disrupting the commercial activity on the plot. These observations supported the Minister's probable cause for the plaintiff.
   
   
2. The arrest of the Plaintiff was carried out lawfully. After the Minister determined that he had probable cause to arrest the Plaintiff, he placed the Plaintiff in custody, and informed the Plaintiff of his rights and the charges against him. The Plaintiff was held in custody in the jail for 10 minutes after he was arrested.
   
   Plaintiff's counsel contends that the Plaintiff was improperly detained. They rely on the definition of a detention, which reads in relevant part: "A detainment is a temporary restriction of movement which allows an officer to question a player." (CCPA §7(1)). However, the standard of proof required to detain a player is lower: where arrests require probable cause, detentions only require reasonable articulable suspicion (id). In actuality, because the facts met the probable cause standard, the Minister was able to arrest the Plaintiff, and did so. Because arrests require a higher standard of proof than detentions, the statute does not prevent peace officers from holding suspects in custody for a period of time, pending further proceedings. Furthermore, the Minister had properly informed the Defendant of their rights and the charges after they had been taken into custody; Plaintiff spent almost no time in jail without being aware of the charges on which he was arrested.
   
   
3. The Plaintiff's conduct during the incident was not Constitutionally protected. The Crown does not contest that every player is granted the right by K. A. Const. Art. 22 to peacefully assemble. However, this right is limited by the Constitution in ways that are "justified in a free and democratic society" (id.) The capacity for rights to be reasonably limited has been affirmed by the Chancery in ColonelKai v. Crown, Case 8 (Ch. 2025):
   

   Rights granted by the Constitution—including to run for office—are subject only to reasonable limits justified in a free and democratic society.

   and again in Ameslap v. Crown, Case 12 (Ch. 2025), by referencing the above quote.
   
   The CCPA prescribes a reasonable limitation when it establishes the criminal offense of Trespassing. The criminalization of entering another person's property without consent protects the plot owner's liberty as an individual to use their private real property for lawful purposes. It is surely not reasonable for the Constitution to protect an individual's "right" to encroach on private property and impede the commercial activity taking place therein.
   
   
4. The Crown cannot be held liable for the Minister's private conduct. The Plaintiff is correct that the Crown is the proper defendant in cases where peace officer misconduct is alleged. However, Plaintiff's complaint contains allegations against the Minister of Justice that he "assaulted" and "murdered" the plaintiff before he identified himself as a peace officer and arrested the Plaintiff.
   
   When not acting in their official capacity, government officials are private citizens. Whether or not the Minister committed the alleged actions, the Crown can only be liable for any alleged actions he committed in his capacity as a peace officer, not in his capacity as a private citizen.

Respectfully submitted,
Capt11543
Crown Counsel