Lawsuit: Pending The Crown v. Stratton LLC, Emmet99, Maelzarun, Mr_GrapeJelly, FTLCEO, Talion77, Case 11 (Mag. Ct., 2025)

[Pepecuu]

Your honor, may we set a time limit for any further pretrial motions? The prosecution has none other than to request discovery for anything the defense intends to use in their case.

The time limits for pre-trial motions shall follow the standard set of 'Response Times' under the General Court Rules and Procedures. The relevant excerpt from the document is provided below.

Response Times
Response times are designed to give a standard feel to the 'flow' of a case. Below will be a standard set of response times for each 'stage' of a case.
Answer to Complaint & Plea (within Criminal Court): 48 hours
Opening & Closing Statements: 72 hours
Witness Testimony, Cross Examination, Writs & Objections: 24 hours
Extensions: 24 hours

As the Court is aware that the duration of discovery is not included in the 'Response Times' set above, the Court would like to let both parties know that it is accessible under 'Discovery Rules' in the same General Court Rules and Procedures document, with the relevant excerpt provided below.

Discovery Rules
Scope and Purpose of Discovery
The scope and purpose of Discovery is to allow all material to enter the court prior to the beginning of arguments for the sake of fairness, as well as enable all parties to provide evidence at the same time so it may be contested on equal grounds.

Required Days of Discovery
Discovery shall last for up to 72 hours, unless both parties agree to end discovery early.

Request for Extension of Discovery
Discovery can be extended by either the plaintiff or defendant. If one side does not agree, they must submit an oppositional statement. Silence will be taken as assent on the matter. All decisions regarding the extension of discovery are decided by the presiding Judicial Officer. Requests for extension must clarify the amount of time being requested. Extensions are granted from the end of the previous expiration time, unless clarified by the presiding Judicial Officer.

Consent to End Discovery Early
If both parties consent to end Discovery early, they may entreat the presiding Judicial Officer to move to the next phase of the trial.

 

[Ibney0]

Your honor, I am going to need to request an extension for discovery. Staff still has not gotten back to me regarding the outstanding warrant.

 

[MJ43]

The Court would like to enquire if you are representing any of the other Defendants listed in this case, as well as request a proof of retainer for Stratton LLC (and for any other Defendants being represented by Agrari, Tallion & Partners LLC).

I'll be representing Emmet, Talion, and Stratton LLC. Because Emmet is the CEO of Stratton LLC, he speaks for his company in asking to become a client. I have also included proof of the retainer fees being paid to ATP.

 

[MJ43]

IN THE MAGISTRATES ORDER FOR THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
The Crown,

Prosecutor,

v.

STRATTON LLC, EMMET99, MAELZARUN, Case No. 2025-11
MR_GRAPEJELLY, FTLCEO, and TALION77, Hon. Pepecuu

Defendants.

DEFENDANTS STRATTON LLC, EMMET, AND TALION77'S ANSWER TO CROWN'S COMPLAINT​

NOW COME Defendants, STRATTON LLC, EMMET, and TALION77, by and through their attorneys, AGRARI, TALION & PARTNERS LLC, and for their Answer to the Crown's Complaint, state as follows:

Facts
1. In answering paragraph 1 of the Crown's complaint, Defendant admits the allegations as listed.
2. In answering paragraph 2 of the Crown's complaint, Defendant admits the allegations as listed.
3. In answering paragraph 3 of the Crown's complaint, Defendant admits the allegations as listed.
4. In answering paragraph 4 of the Crown's complaint, Defendant admits the allegations as listed.
5. In answering paragraph 5 of the Crown's complaint, Defendant admits the allegations as listed.
6. In answering paragraph 6 of the Crown's complaint, Defendant denies the allegations as listed.
7. In answering paragraph 7 of the Crown's complaint, Defendant admits the allegations as listed.
8. In answering paragraph 8 of the Crown's complaint, Defendant admits the allegations as listed.
9. In answering paragraph 9 of the Crown's complaint, Defendant admits the allegations as listed.
10. In answering paragraph 10 of the Crown's complaint, Defendant admits the allegations as listed.

Argument
1. In answering paragraph 1 of the Crown's complaint, Defendant denies the allegations as listed.
2. In answering paragraph 1 of the Crown's complaint, Defendant denies the allegations as listed.
3. In answering paragraph 1 of the Crown's complaint, Defendant denies the allegations as listed.
4. In answering paragraph 1 of the Crown's complaint, Defendant denies the allegations as listed.
5. In answering paragraph 1 of the Crown's complaint, Defendant denies the allegations as listed.

Agrari, Talion & Partners, LLC

MJ43
Attorney for Defendants
Or-c053, Oakridge, Redmont

 

[MJ43]

IN THE MAGISTRATES ORDER FOR THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA​

The Crown,

Prosecutor,

v.

STRATTON LLC, EMMET99, MAELZARUN, Case No. 2025-11
MR_GRAPEJELLY, FTLCEO, and TALION77, Hon. Pepecuu

Defendants.

DEFENDANTS STRATTON LLC, EMMET, AND TALION77'S ENTREATY OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT​

COMES NOW, Defendants, STRATTON LLC, EMMET, and TALION77, by and through their attorneys, AGRARI, TALION & PARTNERS LLC, and for their Entreaty of Summary Judgment state as follows:

1. That in the Crown's complaint, no facts are alleged that, if true, would constitute new player fraud § 20(3)(i) of the CCPA.

2. That in the Crown's complaint, no facts are alleged that, if true, would constitute fraud within the meaning of § 20(6)(f).

3. That in the Crown's complaint, no facts are alleged that, if true, would constitute conspiracy to commit fraud within the meaning of § 19(3) or § 20 (6)(f) of the CCPA.

4. That in the case where there is no genuine dispute of material fact, the Court may grant a writ of summary judgment. GCRP (Writs).

5. That there is no genuine dispute of material fact, since all facts alleged in the Complaint were admitted to, but even though those facts are true, they do not constitute the crimes Defendants are committed of.

WHEREFORE, Defendants, STRATTON LLC, EMMET, and TALION77 humbly request this Honorable Court:
1. GRANT Defendant's Entreaty of Summary Judgment;
2. GRANT all equitable relief that is just and fair under the circumstances.

Agrari, Talion & Partners, LLC

MJ43
Attorney for Defendants
Or-c053, Oakridge, Redmont

IN THE MAGISTRATES ORDER FOR THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA​

The Crown,

Prosecutor,

v.

STRATTON LLC, EMMET99, MAELZARUN, Case No. 2025-11
MR_GRAPEJELLY, FTLCEO, and TALION77, Hon. Pepecuu

Defendants.

DEFENDANTS STRATTON LLC, EMMET, AND TALION77'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ENTREATY OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Statement of Facts​

On or about May 25, 2025, Emmet founded Stratton LLC in Redmont. Despite not being a registered corporation in the Kingdom of Alexandria, they did engage in business there through a series of foreign deals and investments. Between May 25, 2025 and June 7, 2025, Stratton bought and sold Alexandrian Pounds at a standard rate of of £1,200 SC for $6,000 DC, which was a standard conversion rate at the time, as there were fewer subjects of the Kingdom of Alexandria, and thus less currency, increasing its value. With the passage of the Criminal Code and Procedures Act, Stratton did halt their business for the day, while they retained legal counsel to ensure that they were in compliance with all laws located therein. Upon realizing that they were, they were ordered to continue their work. Emmet99 asked for ways to continue engaging in their business after the passage of the law, and asked if any changes needed to be made to their process in order to remain in compliance. While there were several frivolous suggestions made, such as the operation of the business as a Ponzi scheme, these suggestions were not seriously taken into consideration, nor implemented. In light of this, Stratton provided guidelines on how their business should be run, and how they would acquire money. Within those guidelines, members agreed to refuse to not joke about scamming, and not leak information about their activities to others. These guidelines additionally encouraged employees to avoid those who inquired into their business dealings, and to respect ranks within the business. If individuals were not making deals, they were "replaceable," due to their failure to be productive within Stratton's business model. Eventually, however, things were made public. Once reports went public of their activities, the Ministry of Justice joined their discord in order to gather information about possible illegal activities. As soon as members of the MOJ joined, they were greeted with a message from FTLCEO, who engaged with them in conversation. During that conversation, FTLCEO talked about the basic functions of the business. Members of the MOJ could not learn more without joining the group. After it was discovered by Stratton that the MOJ was looking into their activities, Emmet99 reached out to members of the MOJ of his own accord to give a statement. Within that statement, he asserted (1) Stratton was not a scam, (2) that Stratton did not target new players, (3) That they had no standard exchange rate, (4) they received offers from new players, not the other way around, (5) that he could not control the conduct of his employees and that FTLCEO reaching out to assorted players with offers was not the business of Stratton, but rather something FTLCEO decided to do of his own accord.

LEGAL ARGUMENT​

Having now read the Alexandrian court rules, and figuring out how to properly submit this motion, Defendants argue that no crime has been committed under the facts alleged. Under the court rules, a Writ of Summary Judgment may be granted if there is no genuine issue of material fact, and here, the Crown does not allege any facts that are in dispute. Merely, they skip a logical step and draw conclusions that do not follow from the facts alleged. While the court filings by the prosecution may be extensive and detailed, they do not allege a prima facie case for anything other than the fact that the facts they say are true are indeed true, however, that does not establish that crimes follow from those facts. It is the job of the court not to investigate facts, but rather to gauge the truth of the facts alleged. However, Defendants admit that these facts are true, but as a matter of law, the facts alleged, if true, do not satisfy the elements of the purported charges. There is no dispute of fact, but instead, simply a failure of the prosecution to allege facts upon which a claim of relief can be granted.

WHEREFORE, Defendants, STRATTON LLC, EMMET, and TALION77 humbly request this Honorable Court:
1. GRANT Defendant's Entreaty of Summary Judgment;
2. GRANT all equitable relief that is just and fair under the circumstances.

Agrari, Talion & Partners, LLC

MJ43
Attorney for Defendants
Or-c053, Oakridge, Redmont

 

[Ibney0]

IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CRIMINAL ACTION

The Crown
Prosecution

v.

Stratton LLC, Emmet99, Maelzarun, Mr_GrapeJelly, FTLCEO, Talion77
Defendants

THE COURT SHOULD VIEW THIS ENTREATY AS A ENTREATY TO DISMISS AS OUTLINED IN SEC. 10(c) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE AND PROCEDURES ACT ("CCPA")
Defendant's request a entreaty for summary. While the Court under the CCPA is able to hear entreaties under any styling, this Court would be served better by standardizing such entreaties to entreaties to dismiss. As a procedural matter, an entreaty to dismiss should be the only accepted entreaty for dismissal of charges. While defendants do not request this case be dismissed and instead ask for judgment as a matter of law, the natural result of such an action would be dismissal, and this Court should treat it as such.

Additionally, entreaties such as entreaties for summary judgment are not applicable in a criminal context. The Crown is unable to request this Court find as a matter of law the defendant is guilty of any particular crime, as to do so would be a violation of their right to due process. Similarly, the proper mode for challenging that the facts can not constitute a crime would be a probable cause hearing under CCPA Sec. 9 (2). Civil and criminal trials are different, and have different standards and procedures. The Court should deny this request from the defense and request that if they wish to challenge such a requirement, they use the rules under the CCPA to conduct their challenge.

THIS COURT PREVIOUSLY RULED PROBABLE CAUSE EXISTS TO FIND A CRIME MAY HAVE OCCURED
Assuming the Court believes an entreaty for summary judgment is applicable, this entreaty still holds no water. The defense attempts to rehash much the same argument they made in their previous entreaty to dismiss. They assert "Defendants admit that these facts are true, but as a matter of law, the facts alleged, if true, do not satisfy the elements of the purported charges." Def. Mot. Sum. Jgmt. This is irrelevant as this Court previously found probable cause exists to believe a crime may have occurred. Because such probable cause exists, the Crown's complaint necessarily alleges sufficient facts to hold the defendants to answer.

The defendants request for an entreaty for summary judgment should be read as a entreaty for reconsideration of the Court's previous ruling. The Crown believes that for an entreaty for reconsideration to be viable, it must not haphazardly overturn its previous ruling, but must only do so if good cause exists showing that the previous ruling was incorrect as a matter of law.

THE CROWN HAS ESTABLISHED MORE THAN SUFFICIENT FACTS TO SHOW PROBABLE CAUSE THROUGH ITS COMPLAINT
Assuming this Court does not find that its previous probable cause ruling is relevant, sufficient facts have been alleged that present sufficient probable cause to hold the defendants to answer.

As seen in P-009-1 and P-009-2, members of Stratton internally agreed to conspire to continue their new player fraud after it became illegal. This agreement was facilitated by the manager of Stratton, who informed their employees that they would continue in the practice. P-009-1 and P-009-2. Such actions constituted the intent to form the conspiracy. Later, members of Stratton engaged in a brainstorming session within their discord, in which they took the overt act of proposing business plans for how to use a bank as a front for their plans of new player fraud. See P-014-1 through P-014-12. See also P-021-1.

Conspiracy is defined as: "If multiple players have the specific intent to commit a crime, agree to commit that crime, and at least one of them takes an overt act in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, they are guilty of that offense." CCPA Sec. 19(3).

Fraud is defined as: "us[ing] deceit, falsehoods, or trickery to obtain something of value from another player." CCPA Sec. 20 (6)(f).

New Player Fraud is defined as: "if [a player] defraud another player, and their target was chosen based on said target's actual or perceived lack of experience in Alexandria." CCPA Sec. 21 (3)(i)

As can be seen in P-009-1 and P-009-2, members agreed to continue in the new player fraud after it took place, using the bank, as well as other suggestions as a front. These players additionally committed an overt act in furtherance of this conspiracy by submitting a business plan for a bank which they could use to defraud these players.

If this evidence is additionally not enough, the Court should take into account evidence of consciousness of guilt present within the record. After this Court granted a warrant of probable cause, and after that warrant was submitted with an order to preserve evidence from the Court to Stratton, Emmet99, the CEO of Stratton, deleted evidence from several channels within his discord. This Court previously sanctioned Emmet99 for this action, and should additionally take these actions to show consciousness of guilt. Emmet99 even admitted he did this to avoid having to provide evidence to the Crown. P-022-1. These actions show clear consciousness of guilt, and in the absence of evidence destroyed in bad faith by the defendant, the Court can only assume that evidence would have been unfavorable to the defendant and would have shown further intent and action to commit these acts. Even if these actions aren't enough for conspiracy, they are more than sufficient to show obstruction of justice.

For these reasons, the Court should deny the entreaty to dismiss, as the Crown has shown a prima face case.

Respectfully submitted,

Joseph Ibney0
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria

 

[Pepecuu]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
Ruling on the Entreaty of Summary Judgment by the Defendants​

While styled as a request for summary judgment under the General Court Rules and Procedures (herein referred to as "GCRP"), this Entreaty arises in a criminal proceeding, where the procedural mechanisms differ materially from civil matters. Criminal trials are governed by the Criminal Code and Procedure Act (herein referred to as the "CCPA"), which outlines specific procedures for challenging the sufficiency of the Crown's case, including the filing of an Entreaty under §10.3 of the CCPA.

In a criminal prosecution, the Court cannot bypass a defendant’s constitutional right to trial (§22.7 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Alexandria) by unilaterally resolving factual issues typically reserved for the fact-finder, especially when the case involves intent-based offenses such as fraud, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice.

Thus, even if the Defendants frame this as an Entreaty for Summary Judgment, the nature of the relief sought and possibly a dismissal before trial based on alleged insufficiency of facts places the Entreaty submitted by the Defendants within the scope of an Entreaty to dismiss under §10.3 of the CCPA.

Turning to the merits, the Court finds that material facts remain in dispute, particularly relating to:
1) The intent behind the business operations of Stratton LLC;
2) The purpose and interpretation of internal discussions of Stratton LLC's employees;
3) The actions taken after the Crown began its investigation, including the deletion of potentially incriminating material.

Moreover, as stated in the ruling on the Defendants' Entreaty of Judgement as a Matter of Law, the Crown has provided sufficient allegations and evidence to support a prima facie case for the charges of conspiracy, new player fraud, and obstruction of justice, which, as stated above, cannot be resolved without a full trial.

Accordingly, the Entreaty of Summary Judgement by the Defendants is hereby denied.

 

[Pepecuu]

Given that the deadline for summons has well passed and that @Mr_GrapeJelly and @Maelzarun or their respective legal counsel have yet to appear in Court, the Court will charge both of them with Contempt of Court with a fine of £100 each.

A Public Defender will be assigned to represent them in this case, in accordance with §14.1 of the Criminal Code and Procedure Act.