ENTREATY OF DISMISSAL
Failure to Include Party
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant Thritystone moves to dismiss this case pursuant to the
General Court Rules and Procedures on grounds of
Failure to Include Party.
The Crown's own filings prove that from the very first day of this case, it believed multiple individuals were engaged in a conspiracy. The Crown possessed evidence of 12700k's involvement on January 22, 2026. It referenced this evidence in its warrant application. It explicitly stated it believed "multiple individuals within the Alexandria National Party have entered into a conspiracy."
Yet the Crown chose to charge only Thritystone.
Having deliberately excluded a necessary party—a co-conspirator whose conduct the Crown now claims is central to this case—the Crown's complaint is fatally defective. The case must be dismissed.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
The
General Court Rules and Procedures establish
Failure to Include Party as a ground for dismissal:
Grounds for Dismissal:
This ground must be raised before opening statements.
See id. Opening statements have not yet occurred.
III. FACTS
A. The Crown Knew About 12700k on January 22, 2026
- On January 22, 2026, the Crown filed its Criminal Complaint charging only Thritystone. See The Crown v. Thritystone, Case 3 (Mag. Ct., 2026) #1.
- On the same day, the Crown filed an Entreaty for Warrant to Search. See The Crown v. Thritystone, Case 3 (Mag. Ct., 2026) #2.
- In that warrant application, the Crown stated:
"On January 22, 2026, the Crown received a report via a Ministry of Justice ticket from emilypancakes22, documenting correspondence with an
un-charged, alleged co-conspirator."
See id. at §I(1) (emphasis added).
- The Crown submitted P-005 and P-006—evidence directly concerning 12700k's alleged conduct—as part of that filing.
- The Crown explicitly argued:
"The Crown thus believes that there is probable cause to suspect that
multiple individuals within the Alexandria National Party have entered into a
conspiracy to offer compensation to others in exchange for votes for the Alexandria National Party. This would constitute
Conspiracy to Commit Bribery and
Conspiracy to Commit Election Fraud."
See id. at §II(5) (emphasis added).
B. The Crown Used 12700k's Evidence While Excluding Him
The Crown's warrant application relied on evidence of 12700k's conduct (P-005, P-006) to establish probable cause for a conspiracy. The Crown told this Court that "multiple individuals" were involved in a conspiracy. The Crown obtained a warrant based partly on this representation.
Yet the Crown deliberately excluded 12700k from the case.
C. Eight Days Later, the Crown Seeks to Add 12700k
On January 30, 2026—after discovery has closed, after the Defendant has pleaded, after the Defense has prepared its case—the Crown now seeks to add 12700k as a defendant and add conspiracy charges.
See The Crown v. Thritystone, Case 3 (Mag. Ct., 2026) #30.
IV. ARGUMENT
A. 12700k Is a Necessary Party to the Crown's Conspiracy Theory
The Crown's own theory of the case requires 12700k's inclusion:
- Conspiracy requires co-conspirators. Under A.P. 01-006 §19(3), conspiracy requires that "multiple players have the specific intent to commit a crime, agree to commit that crime, and at least one of them takes an overt act in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy."
- The Crown alleged conspiracy from Day 1. The Crown's warrant application explicitly argued there was a conspiracy involving "multiple individuals."
- You cannot have a one-person conspiracy. If the Crown's theory is that Thritystone conspired with others to commit bribery and electoral fraud, those others are necessary parties.
- 12700k is the identified co-conspirator. The Crown's evidence (P-005, P-006, and now P-013 through P-018) identifies 12700k as the co-conspirator.
By the Crown's own admission, this case involves a conspiracy. 12700k is a necessary party to that conspiracy. The Crown failed to include him.
B. The Crown Deliberately Excluded 12700k
This is not a case of newly discovered evidence. The Crown:
- Had P-005 and P-006 on January 22, 2026
- Cited this evidence in its warrant application
- Explicitly argued there was a conspiracy involving "multiple individuals"
- Chose to charge only Thritystone
The Crown made a deliberate tactical decision to exclude 12700k. It cannot now cure this defect by amendment.
C. There Is No Evidence of Any Conspiracy
Even setting aside the procedural defect, the Crown's conspiracy theory fails on its merits. The Crown has produced
no evidence that Thritystone and 12700k ever agreed to anything.
Under
A.P. 01-006 §19(3), conspiracy requires:
- Multiple players with specific intent to commit a crime
- An agreement to commit that crime
- An overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy
The Crown has shown:
- Thritystone allegedly offered payment to WonderRuby
- 12700k allegedly offered payment to emilypancakes22
These are
two separate, independent actions by two different people directed at two different individuals. The Crown has produced:
- No communications between Thritystone and 12700k discussing any scheme
- No evidence of any agreement between them
- No coordinated plan - merely two people who happen to be in the same political party allegedly doing similar things
Two people independently engaging in similar conduct is
not a conspiracy. A conspiracy requires an
agreement. The Crown has not produced a single piece of evidence showing Thritystone and 12700k ever agreed to do anything together.
The Crown cannot manufacture a conspiracy out of thin air simply because two ANP members allegedly engaged in similar conduct. By that logic, any two members of any organization who independently commit similar acts would be "conspirators."
D. The Underlying Acts Are Not Illegal
The conspiracy theory fails for an additional reason: the underlying acts are not crimes.
As set forth in the Defense's Answer to Criminal Complaint, voting for a political party is
not an "illegal or immoral act" under
A.P. 01-006 §21(3)(b). Voting is a constitutional right guaranteed by
K.A. Const. § V Art. 22(2).
One cannot "conspire" to commit bribery when the alleged bribery does not meet the statutory definition. The alleged "immoral act"—voting for ANP—is a lawful exercise of a constitutional right.
E. The Defect Is Fatal
The Crown built its case on a theory of conspiracy while:
- Deliberately excluding the alleged co-conspirator
- Producing no evidence of any agreement
- Alleging a conspiracy to commit an act that is not illegal
V. CONCLUSION
The Crown knew about 12700k on January 22, 2026. It possessed evidence of his alleged conduct. It argued to this Court that "multiple individuals" were engaged in a conspiracy. It obtained a search warrant based partly on this representation.
Yet the Crown deliberately chose to exclude 12700k from this case.
Moreover, the Crown has produced
no evidence of any conspiracy. Two people independently engaging in similar conduct is not a conspiracy. An agreement is required, and no such agreement has been shown.
Finally, even if there were an agreement, the underlying acts—encouraging people to vote—are not illegal or immoral. One cannot conspire to commit a crime that does not exist.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Thritystone respectfully requests that this Court:
- DISMISS this case on grounds of Failure to Include Party; or
- In the alternative, DISMISS all conspiracy-related charges and theories, and DENY the Crown's Entreaty to Amend; or
- In the further alternative, DENY the Crown's Entreaty to Amend in full.
Respectfully submitted,
Nim
Counsel for Defendant Thritystone
January 30, 2026