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
