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

[Nyeogmi]

IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CRIMINAL ACTION

The Crown
Prosecution

v.

Stratton LLC, Emmet99, Maelzarun, Mr_GrapeJelly, Talion77
Defendants

ENTREATY TO RECONSIDER AND STRIKE FILING
#98 directed the Crown to provide an interpretation of evidence. The Crown entered #100, which applies P-013-4 to Talion77 and interprets it.

This evidence is before the court as part of the ongoing trial against Defendants Mr_GrapeJelly and Maelzarun, ("PD Defendants") who have not yet had an opportunity to enter evidentiary objections.

The Defense entreats the court to delay its timeline in #98 until after the prosecution has presented evidence and defense objections and entreaties have been resolved.

The Defense additionally entreats the court to do something about #100. There is nothing wrong with the filing in isolation, and it is a reasonable answer to the Court's question, but allowing a formal presentation of evidence at this time would be a breach of procedure that fails to preserve Defense's right to object. Ideally, the Court would strike it without prejudice so it can be refiled later.

If the Court does not strike it, Defense requests that Court specifically preserve Defense's right to object by declaring that any application of evidence to Talion77 is independent from any application of that evidence to PD Defendants. PD Defendants could then object later, as if it were being presented for the first time.

In last resort, Defense requests permission to object immediately.

Nyeogmi Choi
Director, Public Defense
Kingdom of Alexandria

 

[Nyeogmi]

SUBMISSION OF EVIDENCE

The defense wishes to introduce this submission as D-018.

AMENDMENT TO ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

The Defense amends its Answer to Complaint to include these defenses:

- This was not a conspiracy because there was no overt act.
- Prosecution alleges a single conspiracy to commit multiple crimes. There should be one conspiracy charge for that, not two.
- Defendants Maelzarun and Mr_GrapeJelly's ability to raise an adequate defense has been unlawfully impaired by agents and collaborators of the Redmont DoJ, among others.
- The Treaty of Mutual Cooperation in Fraud Prevention guarantees that, if convicted, defendants will be unlawfully subject to ex post facto criminal penalties.

 

[Pepecuu]

SUBMISSION OF EVIDENCE

The defense wishes to introduce this submission as D-018.

AMENDMENT TO ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

The Defense amends its Answer to Complaint to include these defenses:

- This was not a conspiracy because there was no overt act.
- Prosecution alleges a single conspiracy to commit multiple crimes. There should be one conspiracy charge for that, not two.
- Defendants Maelzarun and Mr_GrapeJelly's ability to raise an adequate defense has been unlawfully impaired by agents and collaborators of the Redmont DoJ, among others.
- The Treaty of Mutual Cooperation in Fraud Prevention guarantees that, if convicted, defendants will be unlawfully subject to ex post facto criminal penalties.

The amendments are acknowledged by the Court, thank you.

 

[Talion77]

Your Honor, I respectfully ask the crown to strike the first restitution (Client: N/A), as this is referring to my own starter money.

Respectfully submitted, Talion77

 

[Ibney0]

Your Honor, I respectfully ask the crown to strike the first restitution (Client: N/A), as this is referring to my own starter money.

Respectfully submitted, Talion77

Your honour, I can't find additional evidence to show this is not true, and the document I have lists the buyer as N/A. Unfurtunately, Emmett prior to the raid on his discord used his power as moderator to destroy further logs of activities, so we are stuck with what we have. We don't have any evidence to suggest who the person this money should be restored to is, so I suppose we have to join the defendant in his request for restitution to be struck as to this victim.

 

[Pepecuu]

IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CRIMINAL ACTION

The Crown
Prosecution

v.

Stratton LLC, Emmet99, Maelzarun, Mr_GrapeJelly, Talion77
Defendants

ENTREATY TO RECONSIDER AND STRIKE FILING
#98 directed the Crown to provide an interpretation of evidence. The Crown entered #100, which applies P-013-4 to Talion77 and interprets it.

This evidence is before the court as part of the ongoing trial against Defendants Mr_GrapeJelly and Maelzarun, ("PD Defendants") who have not yet had an opportunity to enter evidentiary objections.

The Defense entreats the court to delay its timeline in #98 until after the prosecution has presented evidence and defense objections and entreaties have been resolved.

The Defense additionally entreats the court to do something about #100. There is nothing wrong with the filing in isolation, and it is a reasonable answer to the Court's question, but allowing a formal presentation of evidence at this time would be a breach of procedure that fails to preserve Defense's right to object. Ideally, the Court would strike it without prejudice so it can be refiled later.

If the Court does not strike it, Defense requests that Court specifically preserve Defense's right to object by declaring that any application of evidence to Talion77 is independent from any application of that evidence to PD Defendants. PD Defendants could then object later, as if it were being presented for the first time.

In last resort, Defense requests permission to object immediately.

Nyeogmi Choi
Director, Public Defense
Kingdom of Alexandria

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF ALEXANDRIA
Ruling on Entreaty to Reconsider and Request for Writ to Strike Filing​

The Court has reviewed the Entreaty, and have decided to split the ruling into 2 parts, the Entreaty to Reconsider (the Court's proposed timeline for Restitution) and the Request for Writ to Strike Filing (for the Prosecution's list of Restitution).

On the matter of the Court's timeline for Restitution (in accordance with the Plea Deal)
The Court is confused as to the Defendant's argument that they "have not yet had an opportunity to enter evidentiary objections". This is perhaps a misreading by the Court as to the true argument made by the Defendants, but Objections to evidence entered into the Court can be objected to at any time along the process of the case, with the process (of filing and response) follows relevant procedures as stated in the General Court Rules and Procedures (The Criminal Code and Procedure Act does not specify procedures for Objections).

Therefore, to avoid any confusion, the Court grants a 24 hour Writ of Continuance, specifically on the ruling and enactment of the sentencing of Tailon77 (as written in the Plea Deal, as well as #98), for the Defendant to gather their arguments and provide objections to evidence as required.

On the matter of the Request to Strike the Prosecution's list of Restitution
Given the granting of a Writ of Continuance for the Defendants to provide a reasoned objection to the evidence presented by the Prosecution (including the list of Restitution), the Court denies this Request at this moment.

Should the Defendant provide an objection on the list of Restitution, the Court is open to ruling on the objection and a possible Writ of Striking should the Defendant request for it to be struck again.

 

[Nyeogmi]

IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CRIMINAL ACTION

The Crown
Prosecution

v.

Stratton LLC, Emmet99, Maelzarun, Mr_GrapeJelly, Talion77
Defendants

ENTREATY FOR CONSIDERATION

Defense just got home from work and will have a response ready within six hours.

Defense's paralegal is recovering from a bicycle accident and is extracting blackberry thorns from between their scales.

Defense apologizes for the delay!

Nyeogmi Choi
Director, Public Defense
Kingdom of Alexandria

 

[Nyeogmi]

IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CRIMINAL ACTION

The Crown
Prosecution

v.

Stratton LLC, Emmet99, Maelzarun, Mr_GrapeJelly, Talion77
Defendants

To the Court, regarding objections -- understood! Defense had assumed that it was limited to the narrower grounds used in entreaties to suppress. Defense counsel will arrange a more comprehensive list of objections to other evidence, which will take more than 24 hours.

Our immediate objections to this evidence and set of filings are:

OBJECTION - RELEVANCE (to P-013-1/2/3/4)

Evidence items P-013-1/2/3/4 are a ledger of legal DC-for-SC transactions done between May 26, 2025 and June 6, 2025.

As a series of transactions that the Crown consistently represents as lawful, (Docket Entry #1, section II, paragraph 10: "Prior to their actions becoming illegal…") it is unclear how P-013 would be evidence of any crime. It is certainly irrelevant to the designation of "victims", since it does not depict or suggest criminal acts happened to anyone.

OBJECTION - FOUNDATION (to Entry #100)

In #100, the Crown submitted P-013-4 as a purported list of Stratton "victims." When the Crown claims that someone is a victim, it is implicitly claiming that a crime was committed against them.

Yet in its complaint (Docket Entry #1, section II, paragraph 10) the Crown introduces P-013 as follows: it depicts "at least £25,000 of sales" conducted by Stratton "prior to their actions becoming illegal." The Crown thus attempts to portray customers as "victims" of conduct that it simultaneously concedes was not criminal.

The Crown has therefore provided no foundation for characterizing any customers as "victims". This misclassification of Stratton's lawful business activity is prejudicial to Defendant Mr_GrapeJelly because Mr_GrapeJelly was a deal-making Stratton employee.

OBJECTION - CALLS FOR CONCLUSION, BREACH OF PROCEDURE (to Entries #98, #100, #104)

Right now, Talion77 is under questioning that will determine his sentence.

Starting from #98, the Court and the Crown address questions directly to Talion77. He is responding in turn by making filings in the general style of the entreaties that a party to the case would make.

In effect, he is being handled like a self-represented party. The problem is that Talion77 has a lawyer on record ( @MJ43 ) who should be running his defense.

Given that he is ostensibly represented by someone else, Talion77 is a witness. He is not on the stand and cannot volunteer information, and cannot in any case interpret laws. His legal determination of who counts as a "victim" should not be applied to anyone else.

So:

• We entreat the court to strike #98 and #100 because they call for a witness to provide a conclusion about a contested matter of law.
• We entreat the court to strike #104 as testimony made out of turn and entreat the court to require Talion77 to file his response through counsel.

RENEWED ENTREATY OF RECONSIDERATION

In a plea deal, the Defendant agrees not to contest certain elements of the Crown's interpretation of events. By sentencing Defendants based on that interpretation, the Court to an extent ratifies it.

Yet only the parties involved in the deal agree to that interpretation. While the Crown and Talion77 may come to an agreement on a list of "victims," Defendants Maelzarun and Mr_GrapeJelly ("PD Defendants") are not inclined to concede that there are "victims" of anything alleged in this trial.

PD Defendants are treating this as a sticking point in order to prevent a situation where the Crown presents an interpretation of facts, Talion77 agrees not to contest it, the Court sentences him based on it, and those facts are later used against PD Defendants as if they had been established.

The Court could remediate these objections by separating Talion77's sentencing from this stage of the trial -- either by postponing it until after witness testimony or by treating it as a semi-separate proceeding so that inferences, interpretations, and interrogatories are not regarded as informative or indicatory in the trial of the remaining defendants.

Nyeogmi Choi
Director, Public Defense
Kingdom of Alexandria

 

[Pepecuu]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF ALEXANDRIA
Small Judicial Announcement​

To all parties involved,
The Court interrupts normal Court Procedures and would like to inform you that the Presiding Judicial Officer (Me a.k.a. Pepecuu) has been appointed to become one of the Alexandrian Chancellors on the Chancery Court.

Therefore, following my plans for cases I am currently presiding over at the time of appointment to the Chancery (Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games), I will be ruling on the currently existing Entreaties and Objections, but afterwards I will offer this case up for other Magistrates to take over (in order to respect their Jurisdiction over this case). However, if no Magistrate takes up the offer to replace me in presiding over this case, I will continue to be the Presiding Judicial Officer.

Additionally, should this case be appealed in the future while I am still a Chancellor, I will recuse from the appeal (else this post is also proof that I will have to recuse from the appeal, due to my extensive involvement in the litigation of this case).

Thanks for reading.

 

[Nyeogmi]

IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CRIMINAL ACTION

The Crown
Prosecution

v.

Stratton LLC, Emmet99, Maelzarun, Mr_GrapeJelly, Talion77
Defendants

AMENDMENT TO ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

The Defense amends its Answer to Complaint to include these defenses:

- There is no evidence that any of Stratton's customers were neither Stratton employees nor investigators.

Nyeogmi Choi
Director, Public Defense
Kingdom of Alexandria

 

[Ibney0]

OBJECTION - RELEVANCE (to P-013-1/2/3/4)

Evidence items P-013-1/2/3/4 are a ledger of legal DC-for-SC transactions done between May 26, 2025 and June 6, 2025.

As a series of transactions that the Crown consistently represents as lawful, (Docket Entry #1, section II, paragraph 10: "Prior to their actions becoming illegal…") it is unclear how P-013 would be evidence of any crime. It is certainly irrelevant to the designation of "victims", since it does not depict or suggest criminal acts happened to anyone.

Your honour, the list of transactions previously undertaken informs the Court of the defendants mode of operation. This both informs their motive to begin the conspiracy, and informs how they planned to continue to carry it out. Relevance under the Rules of Evidence Act requires that a piece of evidence makes, "any fact more or less probable" and thus is a very low bar for admission.

OBJECTION - FOUNDATION (to Entry #100)

In #100, the Crown submitted P-013-4 as a purported list of Stratton "victims." When the Crown claims that someone is a victim, it is implicitly claiming that a crime was committed against them.

Yet in its complaint (Docket Entry #1, section II, paragraph 10) the Crown introduces P-013 as follows: it depicts "at least £25,000 of sales" conducted by Stratton "prior to their actions becoming illegal." The Crown thus attempts to portray customers as "victims" of conduct that it simultaneously concedes was not criminal.

The Crown has therefore provided no foundation for characterizing any customers as "victims". This misclassification of Stratton's lawful business activity is prejudicial to Defendant Mr_GrapeJelly because Mr_GrapeJelly was a deal-making Stratton employee.

There is no prejudice to defendants in referring to them as victims. There is no jury in this case who may take the phrase to assume guilt. It is the Governments position that even if the actions were legal at the time, that these individuals were victims of Stratton and we may present our case however we wish within the rules.

OBJECTION - CALLS FOR CONCLUSION, BREACH OF PROCEDURE (to Entries #98, #100, #104)

Right now, Talion77 is under questioning that will determine his sentence.

Starting from #98, the Court and the Crown address questions directly to Talion77. He is responding in turn by making filings in the general style of the entreaties that a party to the case would make.

In effect, he is being handled like a self-represented party. The problem is that Talion77 has a lawyer on record ( @MJ43 ) who should be running his defense.

Given that he is ostensibly represented by someone else, Talion77 is a witness. He is not on the stand and cannot volunteer information, and cannot in any case interpret laws. His legal determination of who counts as a "victim" should not be applied to anyone else.

So:

• We entreat the court to strike #98 and #100 because they call for a witness to provide a conclusion about a contested matter of law.
• We entreat the court to strike #104 as testimony made out of turn and entreat the court to require Talion77 to file his response through counsel.

Your honour, defense counsel lacks the standing to object on Mr. Tailon's behalf to this. Mr. Nyeogmi is not Mr. Tailon's lawyer, and Mr. Tailon may represent himself however they wish. He is not a witness, he is a defendant who has made representations to the court of his own volition and it is not the place of opposing counsel to object on his behalf. Furthermore, defense counsel can not entreat on Mr. Tailon's behalf, nor can he request such relief, as he is not his lawyer.

RENEWED ENTREATY OF RECONSIDERATION

In a plea deal, the Defendant agrees not to contest certain elements of the Crown's interpretation of events. By sentencing Defendants based on that interpretation, the Court to an extent ratifies it.

Yet only the parties involved in the deal agree to that interpretation. While the Crown and Talion77 may come to an agreement on a list of "victims," Defendants Maelzarun and Mr_GrapeJelly ("PD Defendants") are not inclined to concede that there are "victims" of anything alleged in this trial.

PD Defendants are treating this as a sticking point in order to prevent a situation where the Crown presents an interpretation of facts, Talion77 agrees not to contest it, the Court sentences him based on it, and those facts are later used against PD Defendants as if they had been established.

The Court could remediate these objections by separating Talion77's sentencing from this stage of the trial -- either by postponing it until after witness testimony or by treating it as a semi-separate proceeding so that inferences, interpretations, and interrogatories are not regarded as informative or indicatory in the trial of the remaining defendants.

Nyeogmi Choi
Director, Public Defense
Kingdom of Alexandria

This objection goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. The Crown may absolutely use the statements and opinions of Mr. Tailon as to his guilt in their case in chief, and may refer to their guilty actions. If one of their co-conspirators chooses to plead guilty, woe is to the defendants. That does not make their testimony inadmissible, nor does it change the facts they are alleging. Furthermore, opposing counsel may not continuously renew their entreaty for reconsideration every time they think something has gone against them. The ruling has been issued, and they must deal with the result and make an appeal once this case is finished.

 

[Ibney0]

View attachment 702
IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF ALEXANDRIA
Small Judicial Announcement​

To all parties involved,
The Court interrupts normal Court Procedures and would like to inform you that the Presiding Judicial Officer (Me a.k.a. Pepecuu) has been appointed to become one of the Alexandrian Chancellors on the Chancery Court.

Therefore, following my plans for cases I am currently presiding over at the time of appointment to the Chancery (Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games), I will be ruling on the currently existing Entreaties and Objections, but afterwards I will offer this case up for other Magistrates to take over (in order to respect their Jurisdiction over this case). However, if no Magistrate takes up the offer to replace me in presiding over this case, I will continue to be the Presiding Judicial Officer.

Additionally, should this case be appealed in the future while I am still a Chancellor, I will recuse from the appeal (else this post is also proof that I will have to recuse from the appeal, due to my extensive involvement in the litigation of this case).

Thanks for reading.

ENTREATY FOR RECONSIDERATION

Your honour,

The Crown respectfully requests this Court reconsider its decision to step away from this case. No judicial ethic, nor any benefit would be served by your honour stepping away from this case at this point, and would additionally delay the case further than it has already been delayed. Since your honour has already stated they would recuse themself if this case were appealed, no threat of prejudice or bias presents itself to this Court that would require such a recusal, and the undue delay would prejudice both the defendants, and the Crown from coming to a conclusion in a speedy manner.

We respectfully ask that you remain within the case and allow for this case to begin.

 

[Pepecuu]

ENTREATY FOR RECONSIDERATION

Your honour,

The Crown respectfully requests this Court reconsider its decision to step away from this case. No judicial ethic, nor any benefit would be served by your honour stepping away from this case at this point, and would additionally delay the case further than it has already been delayed. Since your honour has already stated they would recuse themself if this case were appealed, no threat of prejudice or bias presents itself to this Court that would require such a recusal, and the undue delay would prejudice both the defendants, and the Crown from coming to a conclusion in a speedy manner.

We respectfully ask that you remain within the case and allow for this case to begin.

As the announcement is a statement and not a ruling, the Prosecution's Entreaty is not appropriate to the circumstances.

However, after some discussion with the other Magistrates, we have decided that I shall continue presiding over this case, so the Prosecution's Entreaty is granted to some extent.