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

[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 OF CONSIDERATION RELEVANT TO PENDING SUBPOENA

Defense entreats court to delay end of discovery until staff responds to #staff-728 in reference to this subpoena. (Defense includes a handy Discord screenshot to explain the meaning of #staff-728, and apologizes -- it forgot to ask Staff until right now.)

Nyeogmi Choi
Director, Public Defense
Kingdom of Alexandria

The Court grants a Writ of Continuance to extend Discovery until the results from the subpoena is delivered.

 

[Pepecuu]

I have been informed by Staff that the Defendant's Counsel have the information that was requested, therefore I would like to request that the counsel provide this information to the Court as soon as they reasonably can or within 48 hours.

Spoiler: Proof of Information

 

[Nyeogmi]

(This is correct, but the information is a large pile of unorganized screenshots and I am trying to figure out the best way to organize the information -- I'll be filing it before the deadline!)

 

[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

SUBMISSION OF EVIDENCE

The defense wishes to introduce D-019, which is the logs received from the Staff about Mr_GrapeJelly, along with a ticket transcript explaining that the transaction history is incomplete because of technical constraints.

My paralegal is entering a summary of these documents into a spreadsheet, but it will not be ready tonight. (Sorry, when you open it you'll see -- it's a lot.)

Nyeogmi Choi
Director, Public Defense
Kingdom of Alexandria

 

[Nyeogmi]

ADDITIONAL NOTE ON PRIOR SUBMISSION

Relevant to the previous submission, here's a copy of the logs formatted in a way that you or your computer might be able to read: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gdEW4wyiB5bRmjXOMgZbygggMOQ6TSXdDypmYH3asoI/edit?gid=0#gid=0

Future citations from Defendants Maelzarun and Mr_GrapeJelly will refer to D-019 directly, but (for time) you are free to check those against either the literal submission or this spreadsheet, which I believe to be accurate but which may contain typographical errors.

Nyeogmi Choi
Director, Public Defense
Kingdom of Alexandria

 

[Pepecuu]

ADDITIONAL NOTE ON PRIOR SUBMISSION

Relevant to the previous submission, here's a copy of the logs formatted in a way that you or your computer might be able to read: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gdEW4wyiB5bRmjXOMgZbygggMOQ6TSXdDypmYH3asoI/edit?gid=0#gid=0

Future citations from Defendants Maelzarun and Mr_GrapeJelly will refer to D-019 directly, but (for time) you are free to check those against either the literal submission or this spreadsheet, which I believe to be accurate but which may contain typographical errors.

Nyeogmi Choi
Director, Public Defense
Kingdom of Alexandria

The Court would like to notify the Defendant that the link is inaccessible due to permissions, please allow it to be viewable via the link, thanks!

Spoiler: Screenshot (Warning: Light Mode)

However, given the .zip file for D-019 is accessible, the Court shall consider the evidence presented and continue with normal Court proceedings. Accordingly, Discovery shall close in 72 hours (Deadline: 22nd of August 2025, 2.15am UTC) should the parties not have any other Writs, Entreaties, Objections or Amendments (to either the Complaint or the Answer to Complaint) to file to the Court.

 

[Pepecuu]

Given that it has been more than 72 hours since either party has made any amendments, Discovery has now ended and the Court will now move into opening statements. The Prosecution shall have 72 hours to make their opening statement (Deadline: 26th August 2025, 5.00am UTC).

 

[Ibney0]

Your honour,

I request a 24 hour extension, as I am no longer Minister of Justice and must secure employment again or pass this case off.

 

[Pepecuu]

Your honour,

I request a 24 hour extension, as I am no longer Minister of Justice and must secure employment again or pass this case off.

Writ of Continuance granted. The Prosecution is given until 27th August, 5.00am UTC to submit their opening statements.

 

[Ibney0]

IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
OPENING STATEMENT

Your honor,

This is a case of greed. On May 25th, 2025, Emmet99 founded Stratton LLC to engage in foreign exchanges between Alexandria and Redmont. Defendant Emmet99's business strategy revolved entirely around new players. In order to make a profit, evidence will show that Defendant Emmet99 bought Alexandrian pounds at a rate of £1 SC for $5 DC. Evidence will show that Emmet99 at the time understood the exchange rate to be at the minimum £1 SC for $48 DC. And evidence at the time will show that he targeted new players due to their lack of market knowledge.

The Crown wants to make something very clear. At the time, this action was completely legal. This nation is young, and at the time the interim government had not passed any laws restricting foreign exchange or dealings with newer players.. Instead, what the Crown takes issue with, is their actions after it became illegal. On June 7th, Parliament passed the Criminal Code and Procedures Act. This act, among other things, created two new crimes:

(i) New Player Fraud - A player is guilty of new player fraud if they defraud another player, and their target was chosen based on said target's actual or perceived lack of experience in Alexandria.
(i) Maximum Punishment: £10,000 fine and 60 minutes in jail.

Criminal Code and Procedures Act ("CCPA") Sec. 21 (3)(i).

(f) Fraud - A player is guilty of fraud if they use deceit, falsehoods, or trickery to obtain something of value from another player.
(i) Maximum Punishment: £1,000 fine + 30 minutes in jail + restitution.

CCPA Sec. 20(6)(f).

These two new laws, along with restrictions against foreign exchanges fraud, made Stratton LLC's business obsolete. Evidence will show that the leadership of Stratton were unsure how to proceed. However, one person within Stratton had a great idea.

"Ignore the law. Keep doing what you're doing."

Evidence is going to show that, in essence, is what Maelzarun told the rest of the Stratton. Evidence is going to show Maelzarun is no low level grunt. In fact, Maelzarun was Stratton's manager. Evidence is going to show that while Maelzarun didn't make the deals, she certainly had power.

Right away, they're already looking for ways to continue their illicit deals. Some people question whether they should open up a bank and become loan sharks. Others offer incredible investment opportunities which they never intend to pay back. They're creating a common scheme to defraud new players. In a myriad of ways, through a myriad of actions, the members of Stratton conspire to once again continue their deal. What they're doing is illegal. Evidence will show they previously targeting new players and they were planning on targeting new players in the future. They intended to use deceit to get money out of those new players. They were greedy; they thought they wouldn't get caught. That would've probably been true, and we wouldn't be standing here today. Except, the Ministry of Justice secured moles within their organization and were able to secure private communications between their members which will prove beyond a reasonable doubt they engaged in conspiracies to commit these crimes.

You're going to hear from three separate people who worked for Stratton. All of them will tell you about Stratton's activities, and their plans to commit new player fraud and fraud. You're also going to hear about how when Emett99 found out about these moles, and the presence of MOJ members in his discord, he banned those members, deleted messages, and attempted to hide his wrongdoings from the eyes of the authorities. As a result, several messages are lost to time, and you should consider why they tried to hide those messages. As a result of Emmett's actions, we charged him with obstruction of justice. He wasn't the only one either. Maezelrun and Grapejelly additionally conspired to attempt to hide their funds from authorities. Evidence will show that Maezelrun attempted to sell off a significant amount of money to hide it from authorities.

Now, this is a big case, and we have to show you all of this beyond a reasonable doubt. I suspect Mr. MJ43 and Mr. Nyeogmi will come forth shortly and hammer in that fact. Thats fine and thats their job. However, its important you understand what beyond a reasonable doubt means. Beyond a reasonable doubt means doubt which leaves you with an abiding conviction it is correct. That there is no other reasonable conclusion than guilt. The key word there is reasonable. We don't need to show you this beyond all doubt, because no matter what there is always going to be some doubt possible within the back of your mind.

We ask you use your common sense, see the greed that is right in front of you, and find the defendants guilty as charged.

Thank you.

 

[Ibney0]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF ALEXANDRIA
Ruling on Objections made by the Defendant​

Objection overruled. The Court concurs with the Prosecution and believes that relevance is a low threshold, as under the Rules of Evidence Act, it makes any fact in issue “more or less probable.” The Crown’s argument that the transaction history informs the defendants’ mode of operation, motive, and plans satisfies this minimal relevance test.


Objection sustained. The Prosecution’s statements concede that the actions reflected in P-013 occurred “prior to their actions becoming illegal.” In the absence of a recognized offense covering that period, there is no factual or legal basis to characterize the listed customers as “victims” of criminal conduct, making the admission of the exhibit as a “victim list” unfounded and prejudicial.

Accordingly, the Court rules that P-013 is to be struck. The document may be re-admitted solely as a list of customers, without the “victim” designation, unless and until the Prosecution introduces evidence connecting these individuals to one of the criminal actions related to their indictment.


Objection overruled. The Defense counsel lacks standing to object on behalf of a co-defendant they do not represent. Talion77’s voluntary statements, made as a party to the case, are admissible as party admissions. Any procedural issues arising from a represented defendant’s personal filings are for that defendant and their counsel to address.

Your honour, the Crown seeks clarification on this order. The order appears to strike P-013 in its entirety, when P-13 has no mentions of victims. The mention of victim within the original offending area was a single statement by myself notifying Talion of a victim list for restitution purposes separate from this case. We seek clarification as to the status of this exhibit. The Crown believes there is no basis to strike an exhibit, and assume your honour meant that this applied specifically to the penalty hearing this took place in, however, if that is not true, the Crown will seek to submit a motion for reconsideration, and may additionally need to seek an interlocutory appeal.

 

[Pepecuu]

Your honour, the Crown seeks clarification on this order. The order appears to strike P-013 in its entirety, when P-13 has no mentions of victims. The mention of victim within the original offending area was a single statement by myself notifying Talion of a victim list for restitution purposes separate from this case. We seek clarification as to the status of this exhibit. The Crown believes there is no basis to strike an exhibit, and assume your honour meant that this applied specifically to the penalty hearing this took place in, however, if that is not true, the Crown will seek to submit a motion for reconsideration, and may additionally need to seek an interlocutory appeal.

After a review by the Court, the Court would like to clarify that the striking is intended towards P-013 as evidence against the Defendants. The Prosecution is within their rights to file an entreaty of reconsideration should it believe it has arguments that can overturn this ruling.

 

[Pepecuu]

IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
OPENING STATEMENT

Your honor,

This is a case of greed. On May 25th, 2025, Emmet99 founded Stratton LLC to engage in foreign exchanges between Alexandria and Redmont. Defendant Emmet99's business strategy revolved entirely around new players. In order to make a profit, evidence will show that Defendant Emmet99 bought Alexandrian pounds at a rate of £1 SC for $5 DC. Evidence will show that Emmet99 at the time understood the exchange rate to be at the minimum £1 SC for $48 DC. And evidence at the time will show that he targeted new players due to their lack of market knowledge.

The Crown wants to make something very clear. At the time, this action was completely legal. This nation is young, and at the time the interim government had not passed any laws restricting foreign exchange or dealings with newer players.. Instead, what the Crown takes issue with, is their actions after it became illegal. On June 7th, Parliament passed the Criminal Code and Procedures Act. This act, among other things, created two new crimes:



Criminal Code and Procedures Act ("CCPA") Sec. 21 (3)(i).



CCPA Sec. 20(6)(f).

These two new laws, along with restrictions against foreign exchanges fraud, made Stratton LLC's business obsolete. Evidence will show that the leadership of Stratton were unsure how to proceed. However, one person within Stratton had a great idea.

"Ignore the law. Keep doing what you're doing."

Evidence is going to show that, in essence, is what Maelzarun told the rest of the Stratton. Evidence is going to show Maelzarun is no low level grunt. In fact, Maelzarun was Stratton's manager. Evidence is going to show that while Maelzarun didn't make the deals, she certainly had power.

Right away, they're already looking for ways to continue their illicit deals. Some people question whether they should open up a bank and become loan sharks. Others offer incredible investment opportunities which they never intend to pay back. They're creating a common scheme to defraud new players. In a myriad of ways, through a myriad of actions, the members of Stratton conspire to once again continue their deal. What they're doing is illegal. Evidence will show they previously targeting new players and they were planning on targeting new players in the future. They intended to use deceit to get money out of those new players. They were greedy; they thought they wouldn't get caught. That would've probably been true, and we wouldn't be standing here today. Except, the Ministry of Justice secured moles within their organization and were able to secure private communications between their members which will prove beyond a reasonable doubt they engaged in conspiracies to commit these crimes.

You're going to hear from three separate people who worked for Stratton. All of them will tell you about Stratton's activities, and their plans to commit new player fraud and fraud. You're also going to hear about how when Emett99 found out about these moles, and the presence of MOJ members in his discord, he banned those members, deleted messages, and attempted to hide his wrongdoings from the eyes of the authorities. As a result, several messages are lost to time, and you should consider why they tried to hide those messages. As a result of Emmett's actions, we charged him with obstruction of justice. He wasn't the only one either. Maezelrun and Grapejelly additionally conspired to attempt to hide their funds from authorities. Evidence will show that Maezelrun attempted to sell off a significant amount of money to hide it from authorities.

Now, this is a big case, and we have to show you all of this beyond a reasonable doubt. I suspect Mr. MJ43 and Mr. Nyeogmi will come forth shortly and hammer in that fact. Thats fine and thats their job. However, its important you understand what beyond a reasonable doubt means. Beyond a reasonable doubt means doubt which leaves you with an abiding conviction it is correct. That there is no other reasonable conclusion than guilt. The key word there is reasonable. We don't need to show you this beyond all doubt, because no matter what there is always going to be some doubt possible within the back of your mind.

We ask you use your common sense, see the greed that is right in front of you, and find the defendants guilty as charged.

Thank you.

Given the Prosecution's submission of their opening statements, the Defendants now have 72 hours (Deadline: 30th August 2025, 3.15am UTC) to file their opening statement.

 

[Ibney0]

After a review by the Court, the Court would like to clarify that the striking is intended towards P-013 as evidence against the Defendants. The Prosecution is within their rights to file an entreaty of reconsideration should it believe it has arguments that can overturn this ruling.

IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY FOR RECONSIDERATION

Your honour,

The ruling of the Court in this previous evidentiary ruling clearly contradicts the nature of the actual exhibit, the factual situation, and the rules of evidence act. The Crown respectfully requests your honour review their decision and reverse to allow its admittance, or to at the minimum recognize that it only applied to Defendant Talion77's sentencing and allow the objection for this evidence to be presented at trial.

Factual Background
On June 25th, 2025, counsel for defendants Maelzarun and Mr_GrapeJelly filed a entreaty to suppress several pieces of evidence during a sentencing hearing. Importantly, Counsel Nyeogmi did not represent Talion77 in any capacity, and this court ruled that Counsel Nyeogmi did not have standing to object on behalf of Talion77. See Electronic Court Filing ("ECF") No. 115.

Legal Standard
Motions for Reconsideration exist exclusively under common law. The Kingdom of Alexandria currently has no court rules regarding motions for reconsideration. Additionally, the Republic of Redmont has no Court rule or procedure that outlines what grounds a court may reconsider its decision. However, under their motions templates, they list a motion for reconsideration as one of the possible motions. Entreaties for reconsideration are proper in such instances where a party believes a judge has made a material mistake as to the facts, or the law, and should reconsider their opinion. Entreaties for reconsideration are not proper to ask a judge to reconsider their ruling based on the merits.

Legal Analysis
Your honour made a legal determination that the purported "victim list" was unfounded and prejudicial under the Rules of Evidence Act. See Rules of Evidence Act Sec. 8 (3). Evidence is only unduly prejudicial if its prejudicial value is substantially outweighs the probative value of the evidence. Id. The list in question at no time references any of the individuals on it as victims. Furthermore, the only mention of victims was within a notice placed at the bottom of the entry which purported to be a victim list. See ECF 100. This was additionally in reference to the separate list of victims purported by the Crown right above the notice, and not for Ex. 13-4. Id.

Exhibit 13-4 is substantially probative to this case as it lists the individuals which Stratton LLC operated against prior to their actions becoming illegal. Such information is highly probative, as Stratton in the regular course of their business kept such lists in order to keep track of potential parts for the future. They additionally deleted all of this information when obstructing justice, and Ex. 13-4 is the only remaining list of potential clients in this case as a result. The list itself helps prove much of the Crown's case, and its exclusion because the Crown mentioned "victim" in a separate filing, when it does not mention victim at any point in the exhibit is a clear mistake of fact and law.

Additionally, as this Court previously found, defense counsel lacked standing to challenge these exhibits during Talion77's penalty hearing as Talion77 was not his client. The guilt phase and penalty phase of a trial are bifurcated, and to bring forth an objection based on the prosecutions use of an exhibit during a different clients penalty phase is highly improper.

Conclusion
For these reasons, the Crown asks this Court to reconsider its previous ruling, and allow for the admittance of P-013-4.

Respectfully submitted,

Joseph Ibney0
Solicitor General
Kingdom of Alexandria

 

[Nyeogmi]

These two new laws, along with restrictions against foreign exchanges fraud, made Stratton LLC's business obsolete. Evidence will show that the leadership of Stratton were unsure how to proceed. However, one person within Stratton had a great idea.

"Ignore the law. Keep doing what you're doing."

Evidence is going to show that, in essence, is what Maelzarun told the rest of the Stratton. Evidence is going to show Maelzarun is no low level grunt. In fact, Maelzarun was Stratton's manager. Evidence is going to show that while Maelzarun didn't make the deals, she certainly had power.

OBJECTION - MISREPRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE

Opposing counsel presents a salacious catchphrase they have invented in the style of a quotation. Although counsel does subsequently admit this is a mere paraphrase, presenting it in the style of a genuine quote (by giving it its own paragraph) is inappropriate.

The Crown is, of course, allowed latitude for puffery in its opening statement, but the line must be drawn at direct misrepresentation -- even when counsel suffixes it with, to paraphrase, "well, not really" a mere sentence later. Consequently, this portion of the Crown's opening statement must be struck.

Right away, they're already looking for ways to continue their illicit deals.

OBJECTION - FOUNDATION

Yet again, Crown counsel characterizes Stratton's prior course of business as unlawful while admitting otherwise:

"The Crown wants to make something very clear. At the time, this action was completely legal."

-- Joseph Ibney, docket entry #130

Business dealings that the Crown has been repeatedly forced to admit are "lawful" are, by definition, not "illicit." Stratton employees, including Defendants Maelzarun and Mr_Grapejelly, cannot "continue" any "illicit deals" across June 7th because they did not engage in any "illicit deals" in the first place.

Our prior objection to this perjurious smear campaign against Stratton's lawful foreign exchange endeavors was already sustained by Your Honor in Docket Entry #115. Stratton's business operations halted immediately when regulations outlawed them; Crown counsel would do well to learn from that example.

---

RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF CROWN'S ENTREATY OF RECONSIDERATION - #134

Defense concurs in effect with Crown counsel on this matter. In Docket Entry #115, the Court overturned our relevance objection to P-013 itself, because, for the purpose of admissibility, relevance is a low bar. We see no reason to contest that determination. We agree that the evidence itself says nothing prejudicial; we were surprised by your characterization in #132 because we objected only to its inappropriate characterization and the impact of such characterization on parties represented by the Public Defender.

We maintain our view that (stricken) evidence items P-013 are not useful and do not tend to prove any of the allegations, but we freely admit that means we have no reason to keep it out of the record other than to save time arguing about it. Well, now it saves more time to agree to its inclusion; we see no harm in doing so.

 

[Nyeogmi]

IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
OPENING STATEMENT

THE CROWN SEEKS A LEGAL PRETENSE TO REVERSE STRATTON'S BUSINESS

From late May to early June, Stratton LLC does 25,000 SC in foreign exchange at a 1:5 exchange rate. Affronted by this pricing, Parliament on June 7th passes an exceptionally broad anti-fraud law making this business model illegal.

Stratton's employees, in their typically creative, motivated, and enterprising way, respond to the law by entering a rollicking discourse about exciting and highly questionable new business models which they believe they may be able to squeeze in around the edges of the new legislation -- fake charities, fake banks, Ponzi schemes! During this conversation they show utter and deserved disdain for each other's ideas and intelligence. At no point do they treat any idea as viable and finally, confused and annoyed, they abandon their futile scheming. At the stroke of a pen, Parliament has defeated them.

This is a problem for the Ministry of Justice, which has been trying to convict Stratton for some time as a pretext to fine them heavily and reverse their transactions. (It is also a problem for Stratton's ostensible counsel, who at this point have ratted them out twice, will spend the following two months frantically struggling to give the Crown's prosecutor something to work with, and who will ultimately testify against their own clients about hypothetical evidence destroyed during their employment as counsel.)

Defendants refuse the Ministry its anticipated opportunity to prosecute them by, inconveniently, committing zero crimes. The Crown therefore reinterprets their previous activities as a conspiracy.

THE CROWN'S CONSPIRACY ALLEGATION RAISES LEGAL AND METAPHYSICAL QUESTIONS

Under the Criminal Code and Procedure Act 19(3), a conspiracy allegation must distinguish "multiple players" involved in that conspiracy, show "intent to commit a crime," prove agreement to "commit that [specific] crime," and demonstrate a specific "overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy."

Unsurprisingly, given Stratton's collective acumen as businessmen and negotiators, the Crown has no apparent luck in figuring out what, if anything, the purported conspiracy would have accomplished. For lack of any better ideas, the Crown characterizes Defendants' failed attempt to agree on anything as the conspiracy's sole "overt act" -- that is, a planned step in the execution of some crime. Having ferreted out this conspiracy to fail to plan a conspiracy, the Crown reconstructs the timeline -- it was arranged on the 9th, agreed to never, then executed on the 7th.

Consistent with their apparent views on causality and the arrow of time, the Crown argues that signing Stratton's NDA created a conspiracy to obstruct justice. By that account, Defendants Mr_GrapeJelly and Maelzarun would have signed the NDA as a first overt act in concealing secrets they did not (yet) know about business dealings that had not (yet) occurred from an investigation that (at the time) did not exist.

THE CASE BECOMES UNRECOGNIZABLE AS A RENDITION OF THE COMPLAINT

During the period between June 7th and the end of the pretrial period, Stratton activity ceases; its "moles" are unable to produce any more deals. Sixty days pass with no evidence of any criminal scheme. No victims or "victims" appear, except for Talion77 who successfully pleads guilty to scamming himself.

The Crown presents two irreconcilable pictures of the same case. Stratton's conduct was "legal," Crown's counsel grudgingly admits, and Defendants committed no crimes before June 7th; but it was only technically legal, because it was also "illicit," entailed "victims," and required "restitution." In the complaint, Defendants Mr_GrapeJelly and Maelzarun are only charged with publicly contemplating a list of crimes; in the opening statement, separately and without evidence, they're accused of laundering money in violation of a court order.

THE CROWN HAS ALREADY PUNISHED DEFENDANTS AND SECURED "RESTITUTION"

The Court has struck the Crown's statements in cases where it implied a crime it did not allege, but this has not actually stopped the Crown from continuing to behave that way. The best explanation I can give you for why this keeps happening is that this part of the case -- that is, winning it at trial -- has not been the Crown's priority.

The Crown has spent the entire case trying to reverse Stratton's 25,000 SC of legal business by enacting plea-deals where Stratton employees would pay "restitution" to "victims" of "illicit" conduct that was not criminal. The effect of the entire prosecution has been that Defendants Mr_GrapeJelly and Maelzarun have been unable to enjoy Minecraft roleplay on StateCraft or DemocracyCraft for two and a half months -- because they have been enjoined from using their money. This has been punishment enough -- without a trial -- to drive Defendants completely off the server. In that sense, this prosecution has been successful.

DEFENDANTS FACE ADDITIONAL ILLEGAL FORMS OF PUNISHMENT IF CONVICTED

Having inflicted irreparable harm during the pretrial phase without securing the plea bargains it was apparently seeking, the Crown may choose between completing its prosecution and dropping the case. Defendants, if convicted, would be guaranteed punishment in Redmont under the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation in Fraud Prevention -- which was written in response to this case, after charges had already been filed, in order to ensure that these specific defendants would be punished even if it was otherwise legally impossible to do so.

If the Crown does choose to argue further, the Court cannot convict any defendant. Any punishment made in Redmont would be unlawful in Alexandria under the Statute of Limitations Act 10(1) and 10(2) because it would be made ex post facto as the result of a bill of attainder. Yet the Court cannot do anything about this because such a punishment would be enforced in a jurisdiction where the Court has no power.

Nyeogmi Choi
Director, Public Defense
Kingdom of Alexandria

 

[Ibney0]

OBJECTION - MISREPRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE

Opposing counsel presents a salacious catchphrase they have invented in the style of a quotation. Although counsel does subsequently admit this is a mere paraphrase, presenting it in the style of a genuine quote (by giving it its own paragraph) is inappropriate.

The Crown is, of course, allowed latitude for puffery in its opening statement, but the line must be drawn at direct misrepresentation -- even when counsel suffixes it with, to paraphrase, "well, not really" a mere sentence later. Consequently, this portion of the Crown's opening statement must be struck.

Two things, your honour. Firstly, its my opening statement. You're free to think I didn't prove something I promised. Second, I will point your honour to P-009-1 where Maelzarun says "forget about the law keep doing work." Like counsel says, I'm allowed puffery, and how I style my opening is up to me.

Opening statements are not evidence. CCPA Sec. 5(a), (d), (e). No evidence has been presented in this case yet. I said I would show such evidence in my case in chief, and the objection at this moment is improper.

OBJECTION - FOUNDATION

Yet again, Crown counsel characterizes Stratton's prior course of business as unlawful while admitting otherwise:

"The Crown wants to make something very clear. At the time, this action was completely legal."

-- Joseph Ibney, docket entry #130

Business dealings that the Crown has been repeatedly forced to admit are "lawful" are, by definition, not "illicit." Stratton employees, including Defendants Maelzarun and Mr_Grapejelly, cannot "continue" any "illicit deals" across June 7th because they did not engage in any "illicit deals" in the first place.

Our prior objection to this perjurious smear campaign against Stratton's lawful foreign exchange endeavors was already sustained by Your Honor in Docket Entry #115. Stratton's business operations halted immediately when regulations outlawed them; Crown counsel would do well to learn from that example.

Your honour, Blacks Law Dictionary defines "illicit" as "illicit (i[l]-lis-ət) adj. (16c) Illegal or improper." See Illicit, Blacks Law Dictionary, 12th Ed. 2024. In the Crown's opinion, as it should be clear, what Stratton was doing was highly improper. From a social aspect, the state believes these individuals were scamming new players out of their money and at the same time artificially inflating the money supply.

It is completely true and we can prove from their own words they intended to continue their actions. And once again, Opening statements are not evidence. CCPA Sec. 5(a), (d), (e). I don't need to prove anything in my opening statement, and I don't need to lay any foundation. The purpose of an opening statement specifically is to give a roadmap to the Court for what I am going to do. If it doesn't arise to a constitutional violation, it doesn't apply,.

 

[Ibney0]

IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
OPENING STATEMENT

THE CROWN SEEKS A LEGAL PRETENSE TO REVERSE STRATTON'S BUSINESS

From late May to early June, Stratton LLC does 25,000 SC in foreign exchange at a 1:5 exchange rate. Affronted by this pricing, Parliament on June 7th passes an exceptionally broad anti-fraud law making this business model illegal.

Stratton's employees, in their typically creative, motivated, and enterprising way, respond to the law by entering a rollicking discourse about exciting and highly questionable new business models which they believe they may be able to squeeze in around the edges of the new legislation -- fake charities, fake banks, Ponzi schemes! During this conversation they show utter and deserved disdain for each other's ideas and intelligence. At no point do they treat any idea as viable and finally, confused and annoyed, they abandon their futile scheming. At the stroke of a pen, Parliament has defeated them.

This is a problem for the Ministry of Justice, which has been trying to convict Stratton for some time as a pretext to fine them heavily and reverse their transactions. (It is also a problem for Stratton's ostensible counsel, who at this point have ratted them out twice, will spend the following two months frantically struggling to give the Crown's prosecutor something to work with, and who will ultimately testify against their own clients about hypothetical evidence destroyed during their employment as counsel.)

Defendants refuse the Ministry its anticipated opportunity to prosecute them by, inconveniently, committing zero crimes. The Crown therefore reinterprets their previous activities as a conspiracy.

THE CROWN'S CONSPIRACY ALLEGATION RAISES LEGAL AND METAPHYSICAL QUESTIONS

Under the Criminal Code and Procedure Act 19(3), a conspiracy allegation must distinguish "multiple players" involved in that conspiracy, show "intent to commit a crime," prove agreement to "commit that [specific] crime," and demonstrate a specific "overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy."

Unsurprisingly, given Stratton's collective acumen as businessmen and negotiators, the Crown has no apparent luck in figuring out what, if anything, the purported conspiracy would have accomplished. For lack of any better ideas, the Crown characterizes Defendants' failed attempt to agree on anything as the conspiracy's sole "overt act" -- that is, a planned step in the execution of some crime. Having ferreted out this conspiracy to fail to plan a conspiracy, the Crown reconstructs the timeline -- it was arranged on the 9th, agreed to never, then executed on the 7th.

Consistent with their apparent views on causality and the arrow of time, the Crown argues that signing Stratton's NDA created a conspiracy to obstruct justice. By that account, Defendants Mr_GrapeJelly and Maelzarun would have signed the NDA as a first overt act in concealing secrets they did not (yet) know about business dealings that had not (yet) occurred from an investigation that (at the time) did not exist.

THE CASE BECOMES UNRECOGNIZABLE AS A RENDITION OF THE COMPLAINT

During the period between June 7th and the end of the pretrial period, Stratton activity ceases; its "moles" are unable to produce any more deals. Sixty days pass with no evidence of any criminal scheme. No victims or "victims" appear, except for Talion77 who successfully pleads guilty to scamming himself.

The Crown presents two irreconcilable pictures of the same case. Stratton's conduct was "legal," Crown's counsel grudgingly admits, and Defendants committed no crimes before June 7th; but it was only technically legal, because it was also "illicit," entailed "victims," and required "restitution." In the complaint, Defendants Mr_GrapeJelly and Maelzarun are only charged with publicly contemplating a list of crimes; in the opening statement, separately and without evidence, they're accused of laundering money in violation of a court order.

THE CROWN HAS ALREADY PUNISHED DEFENDANTS AND SECURED "RESTITUTION"

The Court has struck the Crown's statements in cases where it implied a crime it did not allege, but this has not actually stopped the Crown from continuing to behave that way. The best explanation I can give you for why this keeps happening is that this part of the case -- that is, winning it at trial -- has not been the Crown's priority.

The Crown has spent the entire case trying to reverse Stratton's 25,000 SC of legal business by enacting plea-deals where Stratton employees would pay "restitution" to "victims" of "illicit" conduct that was not criminal. The effect of the entire prosecution has been that Defendants Mr_GrapeJelly and Maelzarun have been unable to enjoy Minecraft roleplay on StateCraft or DemocracyCraft for two and a half months -- because they have been enjoined from using their money. This has been punishment enough -- without a trial -- to drive Defendants completely off the server. In that sense, this prosecution has been successful.

DEFENDANTS FACE ADDITIONAL ILLEGAL FORMS OF PUNISHMENT IF CONVICTED

Having inflicted irreparable harm during the pretrial phase without securing the plea bargains it was apparently seeking, the Crown may choose between completing its prosecution and dropping the case. Defendants, if convicted, would be guaranteed punishment in Redmont under the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation in Fraud Prevention -- which was written in response to this case, after charges had already been filed, in order to ensure that these specific defendants would be punished even if it was otherwise legally impossible to do so.

If the Crown does choose to argue further, the Court cannot convict any defendant. Any punishment made in Redmont would be unlawful in Alexandria under the Statute of Limitations Act 10(1) and 10(2) because it would be made ex post facto as the result of a bill of attainder. Yet the Court cannot do anything about this because such a punishment would be enforced in a jurisdiction where the Court has no power.

Nyeogmi Choi
Director, Public Defense
Kingdom of Alexandria

No objections your honour, if you are waiting on those to continue. It is the style of Crown counsel to not object during opening statements or closing arguments unless something egregious takes place.

 

[Pepecuu]

IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY FOR RECONSIDERATION

Your honour,

The ruling of the Court in this previous evidentiary ruling clearly contradicts the nature of the actual exhibit, the factual situation, and the rules of evidence act. The Crown respectfully requests your honour review their decision and reverse to allow its admittance, or to at the minimum recognize that it only applied to Defendant Talion77's sentencing and allow the objection for this evidence to be presented at trial.

Factual Background
On June 25th, 2025, counsel for defendants Maelzarun and Mr_GrapeJelly filed a entreaty to suppress several pieces of evidence during a sentencing hearing. Importantly, Counsel Nyeogmi did not represent Talion77 in any capacity, and this court ruled that Counsel Nyeogmi did not have standing to object on behalf of Talion77. See Electronic Court Filing ("ECF") No. 115.

Legal Standard
Motions for Reconsideration exist exclusively under common law. The Kingdom of Alexandria currently has no court rules regarding motions for reconsideration. Additionally, the Republic of Redmont has no Court rule or procedure that outlines what grounds a court may reconsider its decision. However, under their motions templates, they list a motion for reconsideration as one of the possible motions. Entreaties for reconsideration are proper in such instances where a party believes a judge has made a material mistake as to the facts, or the law, and should reconsider their opinion. Entreaties for reconsideration are not proper to ask a judge to reconsider their ruling based on the merits.

Legal Analysis
Your honour made a legal determination that the purported "victim list" was unfounded and prejudicial under the Rules of Evidence Act. See Rules of Evidence Act Sec. 8 (3). Evidence is only unduly prejudicial if its prejudicial value is substantially outweighs the probative value of the evidence. Id. The list in question at no time references any of the individuals on it as victims. Furthermore, the only mention of victims was within a notice placed at the bottom of the entry which purported to be a victim list. See ECF 100. This was additionally in reference to the separate list of victims purported by the Crown right above the notice, and not for Ex. 13-4. Id.

Exhibit 13-4 is substantially probative to this case as it lists the individuals which Stratton LLC operated against prior to their actions becoming illegal. Such information is highly probative, as Stratton in the regular course of their business kept such lists in order to keep track of potential parts for the future. They additionally deleted all of this information when obstructing justice, and Ex. 13-4 is the only remaining list of potential clients in this case as a result. The list itself helps prove much of the Crown's case, and its exclusion because the Crown mentioned "victim" in a separate filing, when it does not mention victim at any point in the exhibit is a clear mistake of fact and law.

Additionally, as this Court previously found, defense counsel lacked standing to challenge these exhibits during Talion77's penalty hearing as Talion77 was not his client. The guilt phase and penalty phase of a trial are bifurcated, and to bring forth an objection based on the prosecutions use of an exhibit during a different clients penalty phase is highly improper.

Conclusion
For these reasons, the Crown asks this Court to reconsider its previous ruling, and allow for the admittance of P-013-4.

Respectfully submitted,

Joseph Ibney0
Solicitor General
Kingdom of Alexandria

After a review by the Court on P-013, the Court has overlooked the fact that the mention of "victim" only appears outside of the evidence itself, and therefore no changes would be needed on the Prosecution's end as they have already followed the Court order.

Additionally, as the Defendant also supports the Prosecution's Entreaty of reconsideration, the Court believes that it has made an error in this specific ruling on the striking of P-013 and shall overturn it. Accordingly, P-013 shall be considered admissible and used during trial or deliberation for a verdict.

 

[Pepecuu]

OBJECTION - MISREPRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE

Opposing counsel presents a salacious catchphrase they have invented in the style of a quotation. Although counsel does subsequently admit this is a mere paraphrase, presenting it in the style of a genuine quote (by giving it its own paragraph) is inappropriate.

The Crown is, of course, allowed latitude for puffery in its opening statement, but the line must be drawn at direct misrepresentation -- even when counsel suffixes it with, to paraphrase, "well, not really" a mere sentence later. Consequently, this portion of the Crown's opening statement must be struck.

Objection overruled, as "Opening statements are not evidence." (§5(a) of the Criminal Code and Procedure Act), and that the Court concurs with both parties that Opening statements are "allowed latitude for puffery", the Court believes that the Prosecution has a good faith basis to believe will be admitted into evidence during the trial (given the similarities between both quotes), and therefore will allow it in the Prosecution's opening statements.

OBJECTION - FOUNDATION

Yet again, Crown counsel characterizes Stratton's prior course of business as unlawful while admitting otherwise:

"The Crown wants to make something very clear. At the time, this action was completely legal."

-- Joseph Ibney, docket entry #130

Business dealings that the Crown has been repeatedly forced to admit are "lawful" are, by definition, not "illicit." Stratton employees, including Defendants Maelzarun and Mr_Grapejelly, cannot "continue" any "illicit deals" across June 7th because they did not engage in any "illicit deals" in the first place.

Our prior objection to this perjurious smear campaign against Stratton's lawful foreign exchange endeavors was already sustained by Your Honor in Docket Entry #115. Stratton's business operations halted immediately when regulations outlawed them; Crown counsel would do well to learn from that example.

This objection is overruled, as although the choice of the word illicit may arguably not be wholly accurate in describing the situation, the Court concurs that Opening statements are not to directly lay a foundation for their evidence, but to provide a coherent narrative for informing the Court on what they will be building on throughout the trial (using facts, evidence, testimony, etc.).

In regards to Docket Entry #115, the Court has stated above in its reconsideration that it has made an error in its initial ruling and has therefore overturned it, thus making its mention not useful in persuading the Court to sustain this objection.

Note: Given the low significance of using IRL dictionary definitions as an argument in this specific circumstance, the court shall not comment further on it.