Lawsuit: In Session McBrittle419 v. Crown, Case 7 (Mag. Ct., 2026)

[Dogeington]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
Writ to Compel

The Magistrates Court of Alexandria shall grant in part the defendant's Entreaty to Compel.

The Crown must provide:​

1. Internal MoJ documents and/or guidelines for Police Officers that outlines what standard of proof is to be used for Summary Offense arrests.​
2. Internal MoJ documents and/or guidelines for Police Officers regarding Wanted Stars and how to interpret them.​
3. Internal MoJ documents and/or guidelines for Employees regarding investigations around Wanted Stars.​

The Crown must produce, or otherwise inform the court of the inexistence of, this evidence within 48 hours.

So ordered,
Magistrate Dogeington
@Capt11543 @ConsequencesInc ​

 

[Dogeington]

IN THE HONOURABLE MAGISTRATE OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA

Your honour,

As the sole private, licensed healthcare provider in Alexandria, I would like to file an amicus brief on the use of prescription psychoactive medications by constables on duty as a way to treat neurological disorders as it relates to this case.

Signed,
Dr. Phillin D. Blanc, M.D.

This request is denied.
Mr. PhillinDeBlanc, you are a witness in this case, and should this information be relevant to the trial at hand, I am sure that your testimony shall be crucial when it is used by the Crown.

 

[Dogeington]

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



Your Honor,

The Crown hereby requests that the Discovery deadline be tolled pending the resolution of this Entreaty to Compel.

We are reserving the right to file a complete response at a later time.

Respectfully submitted,
Capt11543
Crown Counsel

Granted
The discovery deadline is tolled pending the resolution of the writ to compel or any subsequent motions to reconsider.

 

[ConsequencesInc]

IN THE HONOURABLE MAGISTRATE OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CRIMINAL ACTION
Case No. 6
ENTREATY TO RECONSIDER

Granted in part
Request 4 regarding PhillinDeBlanc's conduct is not directly relevant to this case. While the documents yielded by the MOJ and the future testimony of PhillinDeBlanc will shed light on his conduct, this is not a criminal or civil hearing into PhillinDeBlanc's conduct, and I see no need to make such personal information public.

Your Honor,

While I agree that PhillinDeBlanc's general conduct and personal information is not needed to be made public, what the Defense is requesting is specifically records regarding PhillinDeBlanc's conduct as a representative of the MoJ in his capacity as a police officer. Normally character evidence of this kind is not allowed in trials, however I believe this merits the exception laid out in the Court Rules regarding Pattern of Behavior. See General Court Rules and Procedures (JuniperFig, 2025). §8 of The New Hamilton Police Department Code of Conduct notes than any mistakes, negligence or violations of the Code of Conduct will result in disciplinary action that is recorded, and those might establish a pattern of behavior.

The Defense would be willing to compromise to limit the scope of the records to only those regarding complaints or investigations around arrests that resulted in disciplinary action against PhillinDeBlanc that are not already in evidence. These records would be of importance to proving the Defense's assertion that the arresting officer is not the most well behaved officer and has a propensity for deviating from the rules.

If these records do not exist they would only strengthen the Crown's case in that regard as they can claim the arresting officer has not history of misconduct. However if these records do exist and they show this pattern of behavior, they are more prejudicial to the Defendant's case if they are not on the record than if they were.

This is all I will have to say on this matter and will not argue it any further in this court.


Respectfully Submitted,

ConsequencesInc
5/10/2026

 

[Dogeington]

IN THE HONOURABLE MAGISTRATE OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CRIMINAL ACTION
Case No. 6
ENTREATY TO RECONSIDER




Your Honor,

While I agree that PhillinDeBlanc's general conduct and personal information is not needed to be made public, what the Defense is requesting is specifically records regarding PhillinDeBlanc's conduct as a representative of the MoJ in his capacity as a police officer. Normally character evidence of this kind is not allowed in trials, however I believe this merits the exception laid out in the Court Rules regarding Pattern of Behavior. See General Court Rules and Procedures (JuniperFig, 2025). §8 of The New Hamilton Police Department Code of Conduct notes than any mistakes, negligence or violations of the Code of Conduct will result in disciplinary action that is recorded, and those might establish a pattern of behavior.

The Defense would be willing to compromise to limit the scope of the records to only those regarding complaints or investigations around arrests that resulted in disciplinary action against PhillinDeBlanc that are not already in evidence. These records would be of importance to proving the Defense's assertion that the arresting officer is not the most well behaved officer and has a propensity for deviating from the rules.

If these records do not exist they would only strengthen the Crown's case in that regard as they can claim the arresting officer has not history of misconduct. However if these records do exist and they show this pattern of behavior, they are more prejudicial to the Defendant's case if they are not on the record than if they were.

This is all I will have to say on this matter and will not argue it any further in this court.


Respectfully Submitted,

ConsequencesInc
5/10/2026

I am willing to grant this on the condition that the evidence is released in a closed court session.
@Capt11543 Should the crown object to this, please inform the court within 24 hours.

 

[ConsequencesInc]

IN THE HONOURABLE MAGISTRATE OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CRIMINAL ACTION
Case No. 6
SUBMISSION OF EVIDENCE

Your Honor,

The Defense is submitting into evidence D-004: A screenshot of chat logs from the day of the event, where the victim Thritystone offered to settle and claim the death that occurred was consensual for £100 from the Defendant.


Respectfully Submitted,

ConsequencesInc
5/11/2026

 

[Dogeington]

@Capt11543
For failure to follow the writ to compel in #21, I hereby hold you in contempt of court, one instance for each failed discovery item.
Further for failure to respond to the court's request in #25 I hold you in contempt of court.

I order the Ministry of Justice to fine you £300 and imprison you for 45 minutes.

 

[Dogeington]

@ConsequencesInc @Capt11543

Discovery is hereby concluded. The plaintiff has 72 hours to submit its opening statements.

 

[Capt11543]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY TO RECONSIDER

@Capt11543
For failure to follow the writ to compel in #21, I hereby hold you in contempt of court, one instance for each failed discovery item.
Further for failure to respond to the court's request in #25 I hold you in contempt of court.

I order the Ministry of Justice to fine you £300 and imprison you for 45 minutes.

Your Honor, this Court should not hold the Crown in contempt for not responding to post #25.

The Court's statement in that post read: "Should the crown object to this, please inform the court within 24 hours." (emphasis added)
In other words, the Crown was only required to respond if it had an objection. Given that the Crown did not submit an objection, this Court should have interpreted that as the Crown not objecting, in line with the wording of its original order.

Respectfully submitted,
Capt11543
Crown Counsel

 

[Capt11543]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
RESPONSE TO WRIT TO COMPEL

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
Writ to Compel

The Magistrates Court of Alexandria shall grant in part the defendant's Entreaty to Compel.

The Crown must provide:​

1. Internal MoJ documents and/or guidelines for Police Officers that outlines what standard of proof is to be used for Summary Offense arrests.​
2. Internal MoJ documents and/or guidelines for Police Officers regarding Wanted Stars and how to interpret them.​
3. Internal MoJ documents and/or guidelines for Employees regarding investigations around Wanted Stars.​

The Crown must produce, or otherwise inform the court of the inexistence of, this evidence within 48 hours.

So ordered,
Magistrate Dogeington
@Capt11543 @ConsequencesInc ​

Your Honor,

The Ministry of Justice publishes the New Hamilton Police Department Code of Conduct (2025) and the NHPD Police Academy (2025). These documents contain the Police Department's rules and guidelines pertaining to arrest procedures, standards of proof, and detective tasks (including interacting with the Wanted record).

The detective plugin is also documented on the Detective wiki page (Minecraft Cities Network, 2024).

All information covered by this Court's Writ to Compel may be found in the cited materials. The Ministry does not use any other unpublished documentation to communicate such information to its officers. To the best of this Counsel's knowledge, all of the cited materials are viewable by the public.

Respectfully submitted,
Capt11543
Crown Counsel

 

[Dogeington]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY TO RECONSIDER


Your Honor, this Court should not hold the Crown in contempt for not responding to post #25.

The Court's statement in that post read: "Should the crown object to this, please inform the court within 24 hours." (emphasis added)
In other words, the Crown was only required to respond if it had an objection. Given that the Crown did not submit an objection, this Court should have interpreted that as the Crown not objecting, in line with the wording of its original order.

Respectfully submitted,
Capt11543
Crown Counsel

The court will Grant this entreaty to reconsider, but the ordered fine will remain unchanged.

Please note that while the wording of this court's request does not fully imply the necessity of a response, when a court pings a party and gives a deadline for a response in the affirmative, it is usually expected that the court will receive a response within that time frame, either in the affirmative or in the negative.

 

[Dogeington]

@ConsequencesInc
The defense has 72 hours to submit it's opening statements.

 

[ConsequencesInc]

IN THE HONOURABLE MAGISTRATE OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CRIMINAL ACTION
Case No. 6
ENTREATY FOR CONTINUANCE


Your Honor,

The Defense humbly requestss a 48 hour continuance, due to personal time constraints delaying my ability to write my opening statement. I plan to have it completed by the end of the continuance if granted.



Submitted Respectfully,

∴ ⨿🝛
The Artist Formerly Known as ConsequencesInc
5/18/2026

 

[Dogeington]

IN THE HONOURABLE MAGISTRATE OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CRIMINAL ACTION
Case No. 6
ENTREATY FOR CONTINUANCE


Your Honor,

The Defense humbly requestss a 48 hour continuance, due to personal time constraints delaying my ability to write my opening statement. I plan to have it completed by the end of the continuance if granted.



Submitted Respectfully,

∴ ⨿🝛
The Artist Formerly Known as ConsequencesInc
5/18/2026

Granted

 

[ConsequencesInc]

IN THE HONOURABLE MAGISTRATE OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CRIMINAL ACTION
Case No.: 6
OPENING STATEMENT


I. INTRODUCTION
The Crown has quite a case to prove, and so far it has not been proving it well.

To charge someone with murder, there needs to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. As was stated in the Defenses response to the Crown's case, this proof needs to preclude "every reasonable hypothesis of innocence". And what we are setting out today to show today is that the Noble McBrittle419's innocent and did not commit the crime of murder.


II. IT WASN'T MURDER
Murder is a high bar to prove. It has to be done knowingly and intentionally, or with "extreme recklessness". See A.P. 04-20 §3(2-4). It also has to be proven that the particular individual accused of committing the crime had a guilty mind and it was guilty action. See A.P. 04-20 §2(3).

It is the Defenses assertion this wasn't Murder, but rather a playful act between two buddies who were messing around that just so happened to end in death. Death happens, it's a natural part of life and when we're being silly billys with our friends, sometimes we hit them one too many times when we didn't mean to. The fact that the victim offered to claim this all was consented to and to make this all go away for money shows how unserious this entire situation is (See D-004).


III. WANTED STARS ARE MEANINGLESS FOR ARRESTS
It is the assertion of the Defense that wanted stars do not equal a definitive enough proof for probable cause. As the Defense has said before: It is simply a statement of fact of who killed whom, who was the "victim" and whom killed them. Just because someone is a victim of something, such as death, does not mean it is lawful or unlawful.

Looking at the Detective wiki page that the Crown has produced as evidence, this proves the Defenses initial assertion valid: All it provides is Who started the fight, the victim, the attacker, location and time of death. Furthermore, Wanted Stars are only generated if the person who started the fight doesn't match the victim. See Detective Wiki Page (Minecraft Cities Network, 2024).

That is not enough for probable cause of anything other than to continue an investiagation, which the New Hamilton Police Department did not do. My client's arrest should never have happened in the first place with this flimsy evidence.


IV. THERE IS NO STANDARD OF PROOF FOR SUMMARY OFFENSES
I have still not found any standard of proof for arrest in the documents produced by the Defense or A.P. 04-19 §9(1). All I see is that for detaining someone, according to the MoJ information it is reasonable articulable suspicion. For summary offences, all I have seen is that for Peace Officers "the Constable is responsible for taking appropriate enforcement action. This may include arresting the individual and applying fines and/or jail time in accordance with the Criminal Code Act." See NHPD Police Academy (MoJ 2025).

This means that the only guidelines for arrests for summary offenses refers back to the Criminal Code Act, which does not define arrest procedures. Only the Criminal Procedure Act has anything on arrrests, and is unconstituionally vague as all it states is "Where a peace officer believes a player committed a Summary Offense, the officer may immediately impose the prescribed punishment, including fines and imprisonment." See A.P.04-019 §9(1).

This definition is about as strong as a wet noodle, gives no guidance or procedure for proper standard of proof for arrests, and is a direct violation of Part V, §22 (10) of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Alexandria: Every person is equal before and under the Law. Since a Constable can decided on a whim when to arrest someone without any standard of proof, it is highly unconstitutional. For this alone this case should be thrown out.


V. THE ARRESTING OFFICER DID NOT DO ANYTHING PROPERLY AND WAS HIGH
I will summarize what I said in my original response: Offficer PhillinDeBlanc was not being a good boy when he arrested my client. He did not have probable cause, he did not properly identify himself as a Police Offiicer when he should have, he did not properly inform my client of their rights, he gave them money for some odd reason, and he was high on drugs.


VI. CONCLUSION
In Conclusion, I think the evidence currently in record, the Defense's points and the lack of an opening statement from the Crown speaks for itself: this is a circus. Nobody at the MoJ knows what they are doing with the law, they are not doing consistent and thorough investigations, and they are consistently violating the constitutional rights of my client and many others.

If it were not for the serious issues that need to be and should be ruled on this case, I would be asking for all the charges against my client to be dismissed, the fines repaid and restitution given by the MoJ.

However, there are issues that need to be ruled on for future precedent. I await the parental adjudicator that is the Court to make its final ruling.


Submitted Respectfully,

∴ ⨿🝛
The Artist Formerly Known as ConsequencesInc
5/22/2026