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

[Nyeogmi]

OBJECTIONS
OBJECTION - NOT RESPONSIVE (QUESTION 1)
Witness @Ibney0 has described his basis for investigating users FTLCEO and 12700k. FTLCEO and 12700k are one person: a government informant.

This answer omits any explanation of why Stratton, instead of Crown informant FTLCEO/12700k, became a target of investigation in Alexandria.

The answer should be struck.

OBJECTION - NARRATIVE (QUESTION 2)
The witness was asked what steps he took. His answer should have consisted of a list of things he did. These are the only steps enumerated by the answer. Ibney0:

• "began collecting all evidence I could of what their discord server looked like at the time I was viewing it"
• "confronted him with evidence" that his employees were reaching out and soliciting deals
• "obtained a informant within Stratton, PricelessAgari" through which he "was able to access internal training materials from Stratton"
• "was able to recover Stratton's own documentation" on its clients
• "compiled an exorbitant amount of evidence of Stratton's business practices prior to the passage of the CCPA"
• "was unable to proceed with charges until the CCPA passed"

Everything else in the answer is a salvo of accusations against Emmet largely identical to the ones that were repeatedly struck prior to ibney0's resignation. They generally pertain to Emmet's explicitly legal pretrial business operations:

• "You can see that in P-005-1 through P-005-5. In those exhibits, he lies about several things, including that they do not reach out to people and instead have them reach out to Stratton."
• "He stated he can not be responsible for what his employees do, and that he would release a announcement telling them not to reach out to people. See P-005-4. I have seen no evidence this announcement ever happened. Additionally, at this time Emmett kicked me from their public discord. See P-005-5. He never explained why he did so."
• "I was able to access internal training materials from Stratton which proved that Emmett lied regarding his standard operating procedures and was encouraging his members to scam new players, as well as to reach out to them. In P-007-1 through P-007-3, Emmett walks his employees through the script they would use for these interactions. They would check players play time, reach out to them, and offer them the deal they have been offering everyone else."
• "I also learned from PricelessAgari that Stratton was performing training on their employees on these very documents. See P-012-1 through P-012-7. In these trainings, Stratton employees were told to lie about why they were doing these trades. See id. Emmett even was informing players who to target."

The answer should be struck, or at least the parts that are substantially identical to Witness' previous inadmissible statements on this irrelevant issue.

OBJECTION - NARRATIVE, SPECULATIVE, CONCLUSORY, NOT RESPONSIVE (QUESTION 3)

Perhaps Ibney0 has forgotten he is a witness, not a prosecutor. The question was "How did the investigation proceed?"

The witness describes that Stratton defendants had the conversation in P-009-1. The witness then diverges onto various other topics, most prominently how the he thinks the judge should have been interpreting the law. Specifically, he:

• acknowledges that relevant evidence was not entered ("we can never know what he deleted")
• speculatively asserts what the evidence would have said ("I believe based on my training and experience that it contained even more evidence of this conspiracy")
• advises the Court on what it is legally entitled to infer from the missing evidence ("I believe that the Court make take negative inferences from what he deleted")
• responds out-of-turn to Defendants' previous Entreaty to Dismiss by asserting Witness' own interpretation of the legal issue ("both the conspiracy to continue committing crimes, as well as the several overt acts described above, were more than sufficient to charge Stratton with these crimes")

Trial events involving none of the Defendants are categorically irrelevant to the question as asked. The answer should be struck except for the parts directly responsive to the question.

 

[AmityBlamity]

ENTREATY OF LATE AMENDMENT

Defendants entreat the Court to add a new defense made increasingly apparent during the witness testimony.

Former Crown Prosecutor and witness ibney0 explicitly acknowledges that at the time of the "investigation," there was no law under which Defendants could be prosecuted. ("I soon came to realize that the Alexandrian Criminal Code, the active law at the time, did not criminalize foreign exchange scams.")

Per the principle of nullity, government actions taken without authority, legally, never existed. The investigation could not have been obstructed as it had no lawful basis in the first place.

Defendants entreat the Court to permit Defendants to amend the Opening Statement to include this defense.

Granted.

The Crown has 24 hours to reply to the Entreaty of Dismissal/Objections.

@SoggehToast

 

[SoggehToast]

IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
RESPONSE TO ENTREATY OF DISMISSAL

Your Honor,

The evidence referenced was included within discovery. The additional investigation referenced was P-003-1 and P-003-3. As your honor can see, the investigation was mostly irrelevant and just served as a basis for what Stratton was. Regardless, if opposing counsel's entreaty refers to the discussions between Ibney and 6_4, Ibney has informed me that he made a mistake and forgot to include these statements within his total discovery and apologizes.

In an attempt to satisfy counsels objections, the Crown now provides these discussions as P-026-1 through P-026-4. Under the Criminal Code and Procedures Act, it is unlawful for the government to fail to provide "any exculpatory evidence to the player, as well as any evidence which they intend to use during trial." CCPA Sec. 10 (2). Here, the evidence is not exculpatory in the slightest, as it appears to inculpate Stratton. Additionally, the Crown did not intend to use these pictures during trial, hence the lack of use during their case in chief. Therefore, the Crown did not violate the Criminal Code and Procedure Act.

While the Crown may hold an open discovery policy, that does not create a cause of action for an entreaty to dismiss should the Crown make a mistake. It may require smaller remedies, such as the ability for the defense counsel to cross examine on the issue, allow the trier of fact to take a negative inference from the issue, or even in extreme cases allow for a mistrial, but any remedy the court determines to be required, if any, should be proportionate to the mistake.

Respectfully submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria

 

[SoggehToast]

IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION - NOT RESPONSIVE (QUESTION 1)
This is question is better suited for cross examination. As a proffer, these two were not government informants at the time the government began their investigation.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION - NARRATIVE (QUESTION 2)
The answers elicited describe the steps he took, and why he took them. The witness is attempting to answer the question to the best of his ability, and the answers are relevant to the steps taken. An objection to narrative falls under this Courts general ability under the rules of evidence act to control the flow of discussion. Mr. Ibney was trying to explain his investigation in such a way that made sense in the context of the question, and to save the Court time. There is no reason this information could not be elicited on further questions, and all the restriction of this information serves to do is waste the Courts time.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION - NARRATIVE, SPECULATIVE, CONCLUSORY, NOT RESPONSIVE (QUESTION 3)
As this Court has previously ruled, Mr. Ibney is an expert witness in this case. As such, his expertise on the law and how it may be applied is relevant to this Courts determinations. Opposing Counsel expressly did not object to this, and thus has waived this objection. See (#212).

Respectfully submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria