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

Status
Not open for further replies.
It has recently been brought to the Court's attention that Agrari, Talion & Partners are no longer defending Stratton LLC and Emmet99. As these Defendants remain uncontactable, the Court shall request for a Public Defender to take over their case.

1756777389261.png
 
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

I am now representing Defendants Stratton LLC and Emmet99 in this case.

Respectfully Submitted,

Nim
Public Defender
Kingdom of Alexandria
 
ENTREATY FOR CONTINUANCE

Your Honor,
  1. I have just been assigned to represent Defendants Stratton LLC and Emmet99. Their previous lawyers have formally quit (Post #1754).
  2. I am requesting an immediate 72-hour continuance of all proceedings in this case.
  3. The case file is massive, with over 150 entries, and it would be impossible for me to get up to speed and provide any kind of real defense without time to actually read it all.
  4. To force this case forward now would violate my clients' basic rights to have a lawyer who knows what is going on. It's only fair to grant a short pause so I can prepare.
Respectfully submitted,

Nim
Public Defender
Kingdom of Alexandria
 
Nim said:
ENTREATY FOR CONTINUANCE

Your Honor,
  1. I have just been assigned to represent Defendants Stratton LLC and Emmet99. Their previous lawyers have formally quit (Post #1754).
  2. I am requesting an immediate 72-hour continuance of all proceedings in this case.
  3. The case file is massive, with over 150 entries, and it would be impossible for me to get up to speed and provide any kind of real defense without time to actually read it all.
  4. To force this case forward now would violate my clients' basic rights to have a lawyer who knows what is going on. It's only fair to grant a short pause so I can prepare.
Respectfully submitted,

Nim
Public Defender
Kingdom of Alexandria
Click to expand...
The Crown joins defense counsel in their request for a continuance and has no issue with the request.
 
Nim said:
ENTREATY FOR CONTINUANCE

Your Honor,
  1. I have just been assigned to represent Defendants Stratton LLC and Emmet99. Their previous lawyers have formally quit (Post #1754).
  2. I am requesting an immediate 72-hour continuance of all proceedings in this case.
  3. The case file is massive, with over 150 entries, and it would be impossible for me to get up to speed and provide any kind of real defense without time to actually read it all.
  4. To force this case forward now would violate my clients' basic rights to have a lawyer who knows what is going on. It's only fair to grant a short pause so I can prepare.
Respectfully submitted,

Nim
Public Defender
Kingdom of Alexandria
Click to expand...
The Defendant's Writ of Continuance is granted, the Court shall resume with proceedings on the 8th September 2025, 1:00 UTC.
 
ENTREATY TO DISMISS FOR VIOLATIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, DEPRIVATION OF COUNSEL, AND PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ON TIMELINESS

The Defense recognizes that an Entreaty of Dismissal is ordinarily filed before opening statements. However, at that critical stage my client, Emmet99, had no genuine legal representation. His former counsel from Agrari, Talion & Partners (ATP) failed to file this motion and then abandoned him. Current counsel was appointed only after the deadline passed. To deny my client the ability to defend his constitutional rights because of the failures and misconduct of the very lawyers whose actions are at issue would be a grave injustice.

ARGUMENT

Your Honor, this case must be dismissed because it is constitutionally tainted, legally deficient, and irreparably compromised. From its inception, the prosecution was built on a betrayal of the defendant’s rights: the defense firm he retained was secretly acting as the Crown’s investigative arm while negotiating its own immunity and cooperation. The Crown knew of these conflicts and affirmatively allowed them to persist. The result is a proceeding that violates the right to counsel, the right to a fair trial, and equal protection under the Alexandrian Constitution and the Criminal Code and Procedure Act.

1. THE PROSECUTION VIOLATES THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL, EQUAL PROTECTION, AND THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL

  • Constitutional Rights Violated. My client’s right to a fair trial under K. A. Const. § 22(7) and his right to be treated equally under the law under K. A. Const. § 22(10) were denied. In addition, under the Criminal Code and Procedure Act (CCPA) § 14(1), a player has “the right to legal representation at all critical stages of the legal process.” Emmet99 was deprived of that right in substance if not form.
  • Defense Firm Acted as the Crown’s Investigative Arm. The law firm my client paid to defend him—Agrari, Talion & Partners (ATP)—was secretly assisting the Crown:
    • pricelessAgrari, ATP’s founder and the Crown’s star witness, secretly met with the prosecutor and delivered internal defense materials, including scripts (P-007), guidelines (P-008), and post-law-change chat logs (P-009) that underpin the so-called “conspiracy” charge—all in exchange for personal immunity (P-015).
    • Talion77, ATP’s co-founder and a co-defendant, negotiated a plea to testify against his own client (D-016). He admitted that his (and Emmet’s) lawyer advised him to “take it”: “Counsel advised me to take it btw” (D-016).
Emmet99 paid $15,000 for a defense but received informants in counsel’s clothing. That is not representation; it is a deprivation of counsel and a denial of fair process available to others similarly situated.

2. THE CROWN KNOWINGLY PARTICIPATED IN AND EXPLOITED THE CONFLICT

The prosecutor was not an unwitting recipient of conflicted information. He was explicitly warned. On June 24, Talion77 told Prosecutor Ibney0: “I partially own the law firm which is representing Stratton (and me)” (D-016). The prosecutor replied: “thats fine” (D-016).

It was not fine. At that moment, the Crown knew the defense was compromised by a massive conflict of interest, knew the trial would not be fair, and nonetheless allowed the arrangement to continue because it benefited the prosecution. A prosecutor committed to fairness would have halted discussions and alerted the Court. Instead, the Crown sanctioned a scheme in which defense counsel functioned as the Crown’s agents while extracting defense confidences and steering a co-founder to cooperate against the client.

3. THE CASE IS TAINTED BEYOND REPAIR AND LEGALLY DEFICIENT

This is not a curable procedural defect. The foundation of the prosecution is illegitimate:

  • Key evidence was procured through conflicted counsel acting as informants.
  • The investigation was conducted through the defendant’s own lawyers.
  • The defendant was deprived of conflict-free counsel at critical stages.
Under CCPA § 10(3)(e), dismissal may be granted for a “legal deficiency with the complaint.” A complaint born of unconstitutional and unethical conduct is legally deficient. Where the Crown’s case is constructed from violations of the defendant’s constitutional and statutory rights—fair trial, equal protection, and counsel—the taint cannot be cleansed by post hoc remedies. Dismissal with prejudice is the only adequate remedy to vindicate these rights, deter future misconduct, and preserve the integrity of the Court.

For the reasons stated above, because this prosecution violates the Alexandrian Constitution and the Criminal Code and Procedure Act and is irreparably tainted, the Defense respectfully entreats the Court to:

A. DISMISS all charges against Stratton LLC and Emmet99 with prejudice.
B. GRANT all other relief that is just and equitable.

Respectfully Submitted,

Nim
Public Defender
Kingdom of Alexandria
 
IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
RESPONSE TO ENTREATY TO DISMISS FOR VIOLATIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, DEPRIVATION OF COUNSEL, AND PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT

1. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ON TIMELINESS
As counsel for the defense has not had an opportunity to submit this motion due to counsel for Emmett99 and Stratton LLC's abandonment, the Crown takes no issue regarding the timeliness of this motion, and waive any objections to its submission.

2. INJURUOUS EFFECTS TO THE DEFENDANT ARE THE FAULT OF AGRARI, TALION, AND PARTNERS
The failures of Agrari, Talion, and Partners can not reasonably be considered to be the fault of the Crown. Agrari, Talion and Partners, required counsel within their firm to take on representation of Stratton LLC, Emmett99, and Talion77 ("defendants"). MJ43, counsel for defendants, was a member of Agrari, Talion, and Partners, but was a separate attorney from the holding partners which were charged within this case. Stratton LLC, and Emmett99 chose to take on MJ43 as their attorneys in this case, and their own attorney's failures, while reasonably applicable to ineffective assistance of counsel, can not implicate the Crown for their failures, and can not constitute a reason to dismiss this case.

To begin, current defense counsel alleges that Agrari provided defense materials to the Crown. While this is true, this assistance took place prior to the charges in this case. No conflict of interest existed, as Agrari, Talion and Partners ("ATP") were not counsel for the defendants at the time of this assistance. Additionally, this assistance was provided in Agrari's personal capacity. Nothing about the actions of Agrari indicates he was operating in a attorney client relationship at the time of the provided information. Even after ATP took on representation of defendants, Agrari acted within his own personal capacity when assisting the crown. Any issues of representation inculpate Agrari as an attorney in this instance, and do not implicate the Crown. It is not the job of the crown to instruct attorneys representing defendants in criminal cases how to act in a professionally responsible way.

Current defense counsel also alleges that ATP worked with prosecutors, because they worked with Talion77. However, Talion77 was a client of his own firm. Talion77 was once again represented by MJ43 in this instance who was a lawyer within ATP. These failures are once again entirely incumbent upon the firm itself, and not on the Crown. Current defense counsel points to the Crown allowing Talion77 to continue discussions while owning the firm. As far as Crown was concerned at the time, there was no conflict of interest simply because all individuals consented to this incestuous scheme. Once again, it is not the job of the Crown to instruct lawyers representing defendants to proceed in a professionally responsible way.

Allowing for dismissal in this case will allow defendants in the future to obtain representation from their fellow members, then claim a conflict of interests. The failures in this case are on ATP, as well as the defendants, for undertaking incestuous legal representation. It is not the fault of the Crown that they undertook this representation, and any penalties should be assessed against ATP, not the Crown.

3. OTHER REASONABLE REMEDIES ARE AVAILABLE TO CORRECT THE ISSUES TO STRATTON LLC AND EMMETT99 FOR COUNSELS FAILURES
Current counsel asserts no other reasonable remedies may repair the issues in this case. They point to the information provided from Talion77 and Agrari as the reason for this. However, as stated before, evidence from Agrari was obtained prior to the retainer agreement, and evidence from Talion77 is evidence relating to their time at Stratton LLC, not about discussions as Emmett99 and Stratton's counsel. The Crown seeks no information regarding such issues, and the suppression of any information should be handled in limine with current counsel.

Contrasting current defense counsel, the Crown proposes the following remedies:
1. A mistrial is declared in the current case, and the case returns to the pretrial stage for appropriate motion practice, discovery, and arguments;
2. The Court holds a hearing to show cause why Agrari, Talion, and Partners should not be sanctioned for behavior contrary to the best interests of their clients; and
3. The Court order that any communications between defendants and their lawyers regarding representation and attorney client privileged communications be suppressed for the trial. This would not include information obtained outside of the attorney client relationship, such as evidence provided by PricelessAgrari and Talion77 regarding their time at Stratton in their individual capacity.

We believe these actions will properly solve the issue, and ask the Court to impose the above as their final order in this matter.

Respectfully submitted,

Joseph Ibney0
Solicitor General
Kingdom of Alexandria
 
Nim said:
ENTREATY TO DISMISS FOR VIOLATIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, DEPRIVATION OF COUNSEL, AND PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ON TIMELINESS

The Defense recognizes that an Entreaty of Dismissal is ordinarily filed before opening statements. However, at that critical stage my client, Emmet99, had no genuine legal representation. His former counsel from Agrari, Talion & Partners (ATP) failed to file this motion and then abandoned him. Current counsel was appointed only after the deadline passed. To deny my client the ability to defend his constitutional rights because of the failures and misconduct of the very lawyers whose actions are at issue would be a grave injustice.

ARGUMENT

Your Honor, this case must be dismissed because it is constitutionally tainted, legally deficient, and irreparably compromised. From its inception, the prosecution was built on a betrayal of the defendant’s rights: the defense firm he retained was secretly acting as the Crown’s investigative arm while negotiating its own immunity and cooperation. The Crown knew of these conflicts and affirmatively allowed them to persist. The result is a proceeding that violates the right to counsel, the right to a fair trial, and equal protection under the Alexandrian Constitution and the Criminal Code and Procedure Act.

1. THE PROSECUTION VIOLATES THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL, EQUAL PROTECTION, AND THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL

  • Constitutional Rights Violated. My client’s right to a fair trial under K. A. Const. § 22(7) and his right to be treated equally under the law under K. A. Const. § 22(10) were denied. In addition, under the Criminal Code and Procedure Act (CCPA) § 14(1), a player has “the right to legal representation at all critical stages of the legal process.” Emmet99 was deprived of that right in substance if not form.
  • Defense Firm Acted as the Crown’s Investigative Arm. The law firm my client paid to defend him—Agrari, Talion & Partners (ATP)—was secretly assisting the Crown:
    • pricelessAgrari, ATP’s founder and the Crown’s star witness, secretly met with the prosecutor and delivered internal defense materials, including scripts (P-007), guidelines (P-008), and post-law-change chat logs (P-009) that underpin the so-called “conspiracy” charge—all in exchange for personal immunity (P-015).
    • Talion77, ATP’s co-founder and a co-defendant, negotiated a plea to testify against his own client (D-016). He admitted that his (and Emmet’s) lawyer advised him to “take it”: “Counsel advised me to take it btw” (D-016).
Emmet99 paid $15,000 for a defense but received informants in counsel’s clothing. That is not representation; it is a deprivation of counsel and a denial of fair process available to others similarly situated.

2. THE CROWN KNOWINGLY PARTICIPATED IN AND EXPLOITED THE CONFLICT

The prosecutor was not an unwitting recipient of conflicted information. He was explicitly warned. On June 24, Talion77 told Prosecutor Ibney0: “I partially own the law firm which is representing Stratton (and me)” (D-016). The prosecutor replied: “thats fine” (D-016).

It was not fine. At that moment, the Crown knew the defense was compromised by a massive conflict of interest, knew the trial would not be fair, and nonetheless allowed the arrangement to continue because it benefited the prosecution. A prosecutor committed to fairness would have halted discussions and alerted the Court. Instead, the Crown sanctioned a scheme in which defense counsel functioned as the Crown’s agents while extracting defense confidences and steering a co-founder to cooperate against the client.

3. THE CASE IS TAINTED BEYOND REPAIR AND LEGALLY DEFICIENT

This is not a curable procedural defect. The foundation of the prosecution is illegitimate:

  • Key evidence was procured through conflicted counsel acting as informants.
  • The investigation was conducted through the defendant’s own lawyers.
  • The defendant was deprived of conflict-free counsel at critical stages.
Under CCPA § 10(3)(e), dismissal may be granted for a “legal deficiency with the complaint.” A complaint born of unconstitutional and unethical conduct is legally deficient. Where the Crown’s case is constructed from violations of the defendant’s constitutional and statutory rights—fair trial, equal protection, and counsel—the taint cannot be cleansed by post hoc remedies. Dismissal with prejudice is the only adequate remedy to vindicate these rights, deter future misconduct, and preserve the integrity of the Court.

For the reasons stated above, because this prosecution violates the Alexandrian Constitution and the Criminal Code and Procedure Act and is irreparably tainted, the Defense respectfully entreats the Court to:

A. DISMISS all charges against Stratton LLC and Emmet99 with prejudice.
B. GRANT all other relief that is just and equitable.

Respectfully Submitted,

Nim
Public Defender
Kingdom of Alexandria
Click to expand...
1758397122027.png
IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
Ruling on the Entreaty to Dismiss by the Defendant​

The Court will be hearing this entreaty to dismiss, given the fact that the Defendant has just been appointed new counsel recently.

The Defendant's counsel seeks to dismiss this case over the assertion that the previous counsel that the Defendant had hired (Agrari, Talion & Partners) was secretly assisting the Crown, leading to a Conflict of Interest (CoI) that the Crown knowingly exploited for their own benefit, therefore creating a legally deficient case which has no other alternative remedy than to dismiss with prejudice.

In response, the Prosecution asserts that the failures of ATP to adequately represent their client cannot be considered their fault, due to reasons such as: A separate lawyer (MJ43) to act as the Defendant's counsel rather than the partners of ATP who assisted the Prosecution, that the ATP partners provided their assistance to the Prosecution long before they took on the Defendants as their client, and that the Defendant's willing choice to choose ATP as their counsel cannot be a CoI because of it is the Crown cannot instruct lawyers representing defendants. The Prosecution also asserts that alternative remedies are available in place of a dismissal.

The Court believes ATP has inadequately represented their client throughout this trial, where Emmet99 and Stratton LLC's arguments may have been compromised due to their inaction. Regarding the dispute over whether this inadequate representation by ATP constitutes a Conflict of Interest that the Prosecution knowingly perpetuates, the Court shall look to the timeline of events. Although the Defendant's counsel does show how the partners of ATP turned against their own client of their firm, the Court finds that all matters represented by ATP for the Defendants (Emmet and Stratton) have been done by MJ43, which is not a partner of the firm or a collaborator with the Prosecution in charging their client with the crimes. The only exception to this is when Talion77 noted that ATP had dropped Emmet and Stratton as clients, however by using the standard balance of probabilities, the Court does not find this fact influential enough to infer that Talion77 was directly representing Emmet and Stratton at any point in this case. Given this judgment, the Court does not believe that there was a Conflict of Interest between the Defendant's former counsel and the Defendants in regards to the Prosecution, or that Talion and PricelessAgrari were acting in their firm's capacity to secretly assist the Prosecution by undermining the stance of the Defendant. Therefore, returning to the start of this analysis, the Court believes that ATP has inadequately represented their client due to their inaction, rather than an intentional action by the partners of ATP.

Additionally, the Court also believes that dismissal with prejudice is a serious decision that should only be given at the consent of both parties after the material dispute is settled, or when the lawsuit is so evidently and intentionally prejudiced to one party that it can no longer be attributed to the incompetence of the opposing party (or an equivalent reasoning). As the Court has ruled earlier that the actions by the Defendant's Counsel are not the direct fault of the Prosecution, the Court believes that the lawsuit is not evidently and intentionally prejudiced to one party, as shown earlier where the Defendants were inadequately represented due to the inaction of their counsel. Given inadequate representation, the Court believes that other remedies are still available to ensure the Defendants are treated equally under the law, including the return to pretrial via a mistrial in the current case, to allow for the new counsel of the Defendants to provide adequate representation in the form of evidences, objections and defences.

Accordingly, the Court does deny this entreaty to dismiss, however does recognize the Defendant's right to a fair trial to be treated equally under the law, and given the earlier concurrence with the Prosecution on the availability of alternative remedies not amounting to a dismissal, orders the following:
- The Court declares a mistrial for the opening statements due to inadequate representation of some Defendants during the pretrial stages. Therefore, the case shall return to discovery for all parties to revisit their arguments in light of these changes. The Court hereby strikes the Prosecution's and Defendant's (Mr_GrapeJelly and Maelzarun, who are represented by Nyeogmi) opening statements, and they may be resubmitted (with or without amendments) after discovery has ended once again.
 
IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT FOR THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
JOINT MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FROM THE PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE

Your honour, The Prosecution and the defense jointly motion at this time for this court to award sanctions for the defendant for the failures of Agari Talion and Partners LLC. As enunciated in previous entreaties, ATP have abjectly failed to provide competent legal defense for their clients, and have acted in bad faith to hinder their own defendants for their own gain. As a result, the prosecution joins the defense for asking for a hearing to show cause as to why ATP should not be required to pay sanctions for their misconduct.

Respectfully submitted,

Joseph Ibney0
Solicitor General
Ministry of Justice
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nim
Ibney0 said:
IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT FOR THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
JOINT MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FROM THE PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE

Your honour, The Prosecution and the defense jointly motion at this time for this court to award sanctions for the defendant for the failures of Agari Talion and Partners LLC. As enunciated in previous entreaties, ATP have abjectly failed to provide competent legal defense for their clients, and have acted in bad faith to hinder their own defendants for their own gain. As a result, the prosecution joins the defense for asking for a hearing to show cause as to why ATP should not be required to pay sanctions for their misconduct.

Respectfully submitted,

Joseph Ibney0
Solicitor General
Ministry of Justice
Click to expand...
This entreaty is hereby granted, summons will be issued shortly.
 
1759242443248.png
IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT OF ALEXANDRIA
WRIT OF SUMMONS​

Agrari, Talion and Partners (ATP)'s legal counsel are required to appear before the Magistrate's Court for a show-cause hearing, in the case of The Crown v. Stratton LLC, Emmet99, Maelzarun, Mr_GrapeJelly, FTLCEO, Talion77, Case 11 (Mag. Ct., 2025).

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in being held in Contempt of Court and other sanctions.
 
Pepecuu said:
View attachment 867
IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT OF ALEXANDRIA
WRIT OF SUMMONS​

Agrari, Talion and Partners (ATP)'s legal counsel are required to appear before the Magistrate's Court for a show-cause hearing, in the case of The Crown v. Stratton LLC, Emmet99, Maelzarun, Mr_GrapeJelly, FTLCEO, Talion77, Case 11 (Mag. Ct., 2025).

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in being held in Contempt of Court and other sanctions.
Click to expand...
Your Honour,

as a former Lawyer from Agrari, Talion & Partners, ATP does not exist anymore under Alexandrian law.

Signed,
Talion77
 
Pepecuu said:
Given that the time for discovery has elapsed, the Court will once again re-enter trial.
The Prosecution is to submit their opening statements within 48 hours (Deadline: 2nd September 2025, 2.45pm UTC).
Click to expand...
Apologies your honour, may we receive a 48 hour extension for our submission?
 
Talion77 said:
Your Honour,

as a former Lawyer from Agrari, Talion & Partners, ATP does not exist anymore under Alexandrian law.

Signed,
Talion77
Click to expand...
As far as the Court is aware, ATP still exists under Alexandrian Law, as a sole proprietorship under the ATP Lawyer Talion77.
1759509533595.png

Accordingly, ATP or its legal counsel is given 72 hours to appear before the Court.
 
Pepecuu said:
As far as the Court is aware, ATP still exists under Alexandrian Law, as a sole proprietorship under the ATP Lawyer Talion77.
View attachment 874

Accordingly, ATP or its legal counsel is given 72 hours to appear before the Court.
Click to expand...
Asking for clarification, 72 Hours from now, or from the first summons?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top