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

[Capt11543]

IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
RESPONSE TO WRIT TO COMPEL

@ConsequencesInc @Capt11543

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
RESPONSE TO ENTREATIES
​

This Court hereby responds to the three entreaties that are currently pending in this case.

First, the Plaintiff requests a Writ to Compel (#11). The Defendant has not filed a response to this entreaty. Whether or not the Minister lacked probable cause to detain and remove the Plaintiff from the plot, and whether or not the Minister of Justice was acting in the course of his official duties are contested facts in this case. The Court finds that the requested materials are relevant to these disputed facts and grants this Writ to Compel.

Second, the Plaintiff requests to hold an in-game trial (#12). The Defendant has responded and made it clear that they do not consent to an in-game trial (#14). Due to Defendant's non-consent, the Court denies this request.

Finally, the Defendant has requested a Writ of Prompting (#15). The Plaintiff has responded and concurred with this request (#16). The Court would hereby like to apologize for the delay in their response to the above entreaties. The Court grants this Writ of Prompting and hereby progresses the case. In light of the Court's lack of response to the entreaties before the inital deadline of Discovery and the Writ to Compel which the Court has now granted, Discovery shall be re-opened.

Accordingly,
1. Discovery is hereby reopened and shall last until seventy-two hours from now. Discovery may be abridged at the request of both parties, or extended if just cause is given.
2. The Defendant is hereby compelled to produce the results of the MoJ's internal investigation into bernard_madoff's arrest and SoggehToast's conduct, including interviews and other evidence that was discovered as part of the internal investigation such as official statements, interviews and screenshots. They must do so before the end of Discovery.
3. The Defendant is hereby compelled to produce any evidence related to bernard_madoff's arrest, including complaints made by MrRoyaltys that initiated the incident, any statement and/or reports from the arresting officer's account of the incident, and any screenshots of the incident the Crown has in their possession. They must do so before the end of Discovery.

So ordered,
Magistrate Gribble19​

The Crown submits the following evidence pursuant to this Court's Writ to Compel:

• D-005 - A Ministry of Justice ticket submitted by Plaintiff's Counsel requesting the release of information related to the Plaintiff's arrest under A.P. 02-001 | Freedom of Information Act.
• D-006 - The private "notes" thread associated with the ticket shown in D-005.

Spoiler: D-007

Screenshot of the Minister of Justice's message to the Plaintiff informing him of his rights and the charges against him.

With the exception of the classified evidence discussed in filing #18, the remaining materials covered by this Court's Writ to Compel were already submitted by the Crown in filing #13.


Respectfully submitted,
Capt11543
Crown Counsel

 

[ConsequencesInc]

IN THE HONOURABLE MAGISTRATE OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CIVIL ACTION
Case No. 5
RESPONSE TO ENTREATY FOR CONTINUANCE AND SUBMITTED EVIDENCE


Your Honor,

The Plaintiff has no objections to the continuance that was requested by the Defense. The Plaintiff thanks the Defense for continuing to act in good faith in trying to deliver the compelled evidence in the most timely manner possible.

The Plaintiff, while knowing they cannot make a decision for the Court, would also like to request leniency for the Defense in any Contempt of Court Charges and the Fines associated therewithin the Defense might evoke. I believe the former Prime Minister and Crown Counsel as a particular individual when he says he simply misinterpreted the deadline. It's an honest mistake that I think we've all made and I don't think it would be prudent to punish him for a simple mistake.


Respectfully Submitted,
ConsequencesInc
5/09/2026

 

[ConsequencesInc]

IN THE HONOURABLE MAGISTRATE OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CIVIL ACTION
Case No. 5
ENTREATY OF PROMPTING AND RECUSAL


Your honor,

With the long delay currently being experienced in this case on the several pending outstanding entreaties without an update from the court, the Defense is requesting that the all outstanding entreaties be ruled on by the presiding magistrate post haste, and that the presiding magistrate recuses themselves from this case due to inactivity if they cannot continue to preside in an active manner.


Submitted Respectfully,

∴ ⨿🝛
The Artist Formerly Known as ConsequencesInc
5/20/2026

 

[Gribble19]

IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
RESPONSE TO WRIT TO COMPEL
BRIEFING REGARDING CLASSIFIED MATERIALS



Your Honor, some of the material covered by this Court order is classified as OFFICIAL.

Under A.P. 02-001 | Freedom of Information Act §11, this Court has the authority to compel classified information under certain circumstances, and make the information privately available to both parties. The full section reads as follows:


Counsel has perused the general and Magistrate's Court rules (Judiciary of Alexandria, 2025), and does not find any established protocol for turning over compelled classified materials in compliance with the Freedom of Information Act. The Crown therefore submits this Brief and requests guidance from the Court.

Respectfully submitted,
Capt11543
Crown Counsel

Please provide any material that is covered by the Court order and is classified as OFFICIAL to the Court in the therefore created ticket in the Alexandrian Judiciary server. The Court will review these materials and determine whether or not their relevance to the case is substantially outweighed by their prejudicial effect to the government or national security in line with P.B. 02-001 Art. 11.1. The Court will also review the classification of these materials to determine if they reasonably fall within the classification level denoted within P.B. 02-001 Art. 6, in line with A.P. 02-001 Art. 10.2 and the request made by Plaintiff in #19.

 

[Gribble19]

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



Your Honor,

The Crown does have more evidence that it needs to submit in this case.

I have been preparing that filing, but I genuinely thought that the deadline was later today. I am therefore requesting a 24-hour continuance, but I recognize that this continuance request is itself being submitted after the deadline, so I will graciously pay any Contempt of Court fines that result from this error.

Respectfully submitted,
Capt B. Numbers
Crown Counsel

Granted. The Court allows the evidence submissions made within 24 hours from the time this entreaty for continuance was filed.

 

[Gribble19]

IN THE HONOURABLE MAGISTRATE OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CIVIL ACTION
Case No. 5
ENTREATY OF PROMPTING AND RECUSAL


Your honor,

With the long delay currently being experienced in this case on the several pending outstanding entreaties without an update from the court, the Defense is requesting that the all outstanding entreaties be ruled on by the presiding magistrate post haste, and that the presiding magistrate recuses themselves from this case due to inactivity if they cannot continue to preside in an active manner.


Submitted Respectfully,

∴ ⨿🝛
The Artist Formerly Known as ConsequencesInc
5/20/2026

The Writ of Prompting is granted. To the best of the Court's knowledge there was only one pending outstanding entreaty at the time this Entreaty of Prompting was filed, which has now been ruled on.

The Writ of Recusal is refused. The presiding magistrate intends to preside over this case in an active manner.

Discovery has been closed. The Court will first complete the reviews described in #34. We will continue with Opening Statements once these reviews have been completed and any potential appropriate actions based on the results of these reviews have been taken.

 

[Capt11543]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER

Please provide any material that is covered by the Court order and is classified as OFFICIAL to the Court in the therefore created ticket in the Alexandrian Judiciary server. The Court will review these materials and determine whether or not their relevance to the case is substantially outweighed by their prejudicial effect to the government or national security in line with P.B. 02-001 Art. 11.1. The Court will also review the classification of these materials to determine if they reasonably fall within the classification level denoted within P.B. 02-001 Art. 6, in line with A.P. 02-001 Art. 10.2 and the request made by Plaintiff in #19.

Your Honor, the Crown has complied with this order.

Respectfully submitted,
Capt11543
Crown Counsel

 

[Gribble19]

The Court has reviewed the materials provided in response to #24. The Court finds that all provided material reasonably falls within their classification levels denoted within P.B. 02-001 Art. 6 and that their relevance to the case does not substantially outweigh their prejudicial effect to the government or national security.

We will now continue to opening statements.

@ConsequencesInc
The Plaintiff shall have 72 hours from now to file their opening statement.

 

[ConsequencesInc]

IN THE HONOURABLE MAGISTRATE OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CIVIL ACTION
Case No. 5
OPENING STATEMENT


I. THE STORY THE FACTS TELL
(All times in UTC for the sake of clarity and consistency)
It was in the early morning of March 12th, 2026 at around 3am that the Plaintiiff bernard_madoff and other particular individuals peacefully assembled c-7-high-st, a publicly accessible plot with no gates, no fences, no walls and at that time no signs prohibiting entry. This peace did not last for long.

By 3:17am, Minister of Justice SoggehToast began to assault the Plaintiff multiple times (See P-001, P-002 and D-003), violating the Plaintiff's constitutional right to life, liberty and security before temporarily stopping.

At around 3:30am, MrRoyaltys, the owner of c-7-high-st, trespassed the Plaintiff and several other particular individuals that they were trespassed (See D-004). Note here, that the notification was not in game or via in-game mail, whisper or message, it was on Discord and that service and reception to the Plaintiff was not confirmed by the sender. Also at 3:30am, Minister of Justice SoggehToast assaulted bernard_madoff again, violating his right to life, liberty and security. (See D-004).

At 3:35am, SoggehToast assaulted the Plaintiff again while detaining him, did not confirm he was properly notified of the tresspass or notify him, and then punished him summarily with 10 minutes in jail, which is was proscribed jail time for a maximum punishment for Trespassing at the time. See §20 (5)(b)(I) A.P. 01-006. This action constituted a summary punishment by a police officer, which at the time could only be done if both the player and officer consent to the punishment, which the Plaintiff did not. See §9 (1) A.P. 01-006. And it wasn't until spending grueling minutes in jail that my client was finally read his rights and told why he was unjustly punished (See D-004). SoggehToast also did not refer the case to the Crown as required under the law and my client did not get his day in court, and the Crown never rectified the situation upon appeal, which is why we are here today.

We are here today because my client's rights were violated by the Crown by its highest ranking officer: Minister of Justice SoggehToast. The constitution guarantees Alexandrians their rights. These rights include 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. See K.A. Const. § V Art. 22. These rights were not respected on March 12th. And because of that, my client has suffered greatly both emotionally and physically.

In the course of his actions as a peace officer and a particular individual representing the government, Minister of Justice SoggehToast violated bernard_madoff's rights:

• SoggehToast killed and assaulted him, including assault during the arrest, and violated his right to lifee, liberty and security and the right for those not to be deprived off him.
• SoggehToast unlafully imprisoned and punished him summarily against the rule off law at that time, violating his right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an Impartial Judicial Officer and his right to be equal before the law.
• SoggehToast killed and assaulted bernard_madoff as he was conducting his business with others as a public citizen to try and discourage him from doing as he pleased in public space, violating his right to peacefully assemble.
• SoggehToast took several minutes post-detainment and post-arrest to read bernard_madoff his rights and inform him what he even did while he languished in jail, denying his right to be informed of the reason of his detention and arrest.

That is the story of March 12th, and now we move on to addressing the Crown's Defense to this story.


II. THE FACTS IN DISPUTE
There are several facts in dispute or not accepted fully as fact in this case, so I will address them here:


1. The Plaintiff was exercising his right to peacefully assemble.
The Crown will likely claim that the actions of bernard_madoff on March 12th were not kosher and not peaceful. They will say his actions in helping farm potatoes and then putting wooden shovels into hoppers were not peaceful (See D-001 and D-003). And to that I have to say I agree with my client's assertions on D-001: The hoppers were set to public, and so was the property. To have an unpeaceful assembly would be to be disruptive, and currently the only facts I see the Crown has presented is that bernard_madoff was exercising his right to freedom to peacefully assemble and to express himself, and that SoggehToast the Minister of Justice killed and assaulted him for doing so.


2. The alleged conduct of the Minister of Justice at 3:17 AM UTC.
The Alleged conduct is not alleged, it happened. Both the Plaintiff's and the Respondent's evidence of fact show SoggehToast killed and assaulted bernard_madoff (See P-001, P-002, and D-004). At 3:14am and 3:17am in the Crown's exhibit 4 shows the system telling Minister of Justice SoggehToast he killed bernard_madoff. My client even said at 3:15am that murder is illegal, showing he did not consent to being killed.


3. That the owner of the plot did not properly inform the Plaintiff that they were banned from the plot
A discord message does not constitute proper service and being properly informed of being trespassed. Many of us may have discord close or may not get proper notification of a discord message. That is what happened on March 12th. At no time was bernard_madoff inforrmed of his trespass in-game (See D-004). Any signs on the property came afterwards, and even then they were placed in such a way that no reasonable person could see them without actually trespassing on the land (See P-008 and P-009). The Crown will argue that the discord message was "proper" service, but considering the Plaintiff's confusion and lack off awareness at the time of arrest, that proves otherwise.


4. That the Minister lacked probable cause to detain and remove the Plaintiff
Probable cause is this case is "a standard of evidence which would lead an individual to believe something probably happened". See §4 (8) A.P. 01-006. What would lead an individual to believe something probably happened in the case of Trespassing? In the case of trespassing, its confirming the person is trespassed and knows they are trespassing.

SoggehToast never asked bernard_madoff if he was aware he was tresspassing (See D-004), and if my client was aware, he would have left without incident. That is not what happened. Instead, SoggehToast improperly detained bernard_madoff violently. And once he removed him from the property, instead of informing him he was tresspassed and sending him on his way with a warning which would be reasonable, SoggehToast summarily arrested and punished bernard_madoff.

bernard_madoff did not have the guilty mind as required under the law to commit a crime. See §5 (1) A.P. 01-006. He was not aware of his tresspass. Nobody, including the Minister of Justice, informed him in-game properly of his trespass before his arrest which was why he was confused when he was arrested (See D-004). This all could have been avoided if the Minister of Justice was not so gungho to wave around the long arm of the law and smack bernard_madoff's rights into the waste bin while doing so.


5. The alleged conduct of the Minister around and during the arrest
Again, this conduct isn't alleged it is proven. The Plaintiff was attacked with a sword and hit several times leading up to his arrest (See P-005, P-006 and D-004) and he even said "your sword hurts". The Crown refusing to confirm this conduct when it is in their own evidence is ludicrous.


6. The Plaintiff's attempt to flee and mental state at the time
Bernard_madoff is set to be a witness in his case. He can attest to this and it will be shown during questioning.


7. That the Minister of Justice was acting in the course of his official duties during the entire alleged incident.
This I believe is the Crown trying to have its cake and eat it too: by asserting that the Minister of Justice, the highest official in the Ministry of Justice, the embodiment of law enforcement, wasn't acting in his official duties during the entire incident.

I have but one question for the Crown to answer, which I am hopeful they will in their opening statement: When was he and when wasn't he?

The line is unclear and not once during this incident did he ever identify as a citizen. He always had his in-game tag that said: Justice Minster (See D-004). He wore the Justice Minister tag when he killed and assaulted bernard_madoff, he wore the Justice Minister tag when he improperly detained and punished my client, he always wore the Justice Minister tag.

How can a reasonable person tell what actions were of SoggehToast the particular private individual, and SoggehToat the Minister of Justice? And is it reasonable to assume he didn't represent the Government as specific times during that event? It isn't reasonable, and no reasonable person can tell where SoggehToast the cavalcading Minister of Justice who violates peoples rights starts and where SoggehToast the particular individual ends.

That is because the Minister of Justice with the Justice Minister job tag on is the only way a reasonable person can tell he was actively representing the crown. He may get on the stand and try and say otherwise, but that is the fact: The Minister of Justice wore the Justice Minister job tag this entire event. He wasn't wearing the Citizen Tag, or a Lumberjack Tag, or a Farmer Tag. It was the Justice Minister job tag, so he was on duty the entire time.

Never once did he identify himself as a police officer before, during or after the arrest because he was on duty the entire time.


III. CONCLUSION AND PRAYERS FOR RELIEF
The Crown's defenses have started to crumble under the light off day of the facts of evidence from both sides. The facts point to the conclusion that the Minister of Justice didn't have probable cause, unlawfully arrested bernard_madoff and charged him with a crime against the law in-force at the time, that the Plaintiff's actions were constitutionally protected and that the Crown is liable for the Minister of Justice's official actions during this incident.

The Plaintiff's case, with the evidence at hand and the testimony of the witnesses to this event, will continue to hammer home and prove that it is more likely true than not true that my client's rights were violated, his arrest was unlawful and that the Crown is liable.

I think that is important to remember, that the standard of proof here today as a civil case is more likely true than not true. See §I (6) General Court Rules and Procedures, 2025. And the damning evidence from both sides already points that way to begin with. Remember that evidence as the witnesses testify, and think to yourself: Is it more likely than not? The answer will be yes a surprising amount of times during this case. Here are those questions to ask:

Is it more likely than not that bernard_madoff's constituional rights were violated? If yes, we are asking for £20,000 in compensatory redress for the overall violation of his Constitutional Rights by the Crown.

Is it more likely than not that bernard_madoff was subject to excessive use of force by the Minister of Justice acting as an agent off the crown? If yes, we are asking for compensatory redress equivalent to the maximum fine for one count of each offense under the Criminal Code and Procedure Act at that time: £1,000 and £5,000 respectively for Assault and Murder, totaling £6,000.

Is it more likely than not that bernard_madoff was unlawfully imprisoned? If yes, we are asking for £2,000 in compensatory redress per minute of being unlawfully jailed, totaling £20,000 for the 10 minutes he spent unlawfully jailed.

Is it more likely than not that bernard_madoff was emotionally distressed and has pain and suffering due to this event? If yes, we are asking for £6,000 in compensatory redress for his ongoing needs going forward.

We also ask that the court to consider punitive damages and any other damages or relief that it sees fit to reward.


Submitted Respectfully,

∴ ⨿🝛
The Artist Formerly Known as ConsequencesInc
5/26/2026

 

[Gribble19]

@Capt11543
The Defendant shall have 72 hours from now to file their opening statement.