Lawsuit: Pending The Crown v. Thritystone & 12700k, Case 3 (Mag. Ct., 2026)

12700k has failed to present their plea. As they had previously made themselves known to this court, and they are currently an active player on Statecraft, they will be subject to default judgement, to be ruled on at the conclusion of the case.

@ColonelKai @Capt11543 @SoggehToast You have 72 hours to present opening arguments.
 
AmityBlamity said:
12700k has failed to present their plea. As they had previously made themselves known to this court, and they are currently an active player on Statecraft, they will be subject to default judgement, to be ruled on at the conclusion of the case.

@ColonelKai @Capt11543 @SoggehToast You have 72 hours to present opening arguments.
Click to expand...
Your honor, if I’m not mistaken, I still have approximately 30 minutes to plea?
 
And I would like to notify the court of ongoing negotiations to reach a plea agreement with the Plaintiff.
 
Your Honor. 12700k/FTLCEO has no representation in this court. As of this moment, he has not been assigned a public defender, nor does he have private counsel to advocate on his behalf. Under A.P. 01-006 § 14(1), all players have the right to legal representation at all critical stages of the legal process.
 
OFFICIAL STATEMENT FROM THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF 12700K

My client, 12700K, hereby formally enters a plea of NOT GUILTY to each and every charge enumerated in the indictment, specifically:

a. Conspiracy to violate CCPA Sec. 21(3)(b);
b. One count of violating CCPA Sec. 21(3)(b) - Bribery;
c.Conspiracy to violate CCPA Sec. 20(6)(d) - Election Fraud;
d.Attempt to violate CCPA Sec. 20(6)(d) - Election Fraud.

MEMORANDUM OF DEFENSE FOR THE ACCUSED, 12700K

The defense respectfully submits the following grounds for the dismissal of all four (4) charges, based on fundamental deficiencies in the prosecution’s case.

I. FAILURE TO MEET THE BURDEN OF PROOF & INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE

Pursuant to the Rules of Evidence Act and legal framework omnibus Act, the prosecution bears the affirmative burden of proving each element of the alleged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. The proffered evidence—specifically Exhibits P-013, P-014, P-015, and P-016 is manifestly insufficient to sustain this burden, particularly concerning the essential elements of bribery and election fraud.

Critical Absence of a Quid Pro Quo (Money Transfer) Nexus: The core of a bribery charge under CCPA Sec. 21(3)(b) requires evidence of a corrupt exchange. The prosecution’s exhibits are wholly devoid of any documentation, record, or credible testimony demonstrating a financial transaction or transfer of valuables from the accused to any voter or election official. No “quid pro quo”(Money Transfer) has been established, thereby vitiating the very foundation of the bribery and related conspiracy charges.

II. IMPERMISSIBLE AND EXTRA-JURISDICTIONAL EVIDENCE

The defense objects to the admission of evidence sourced from outside the jurisdiction of this Court, as its consideration constitutes a reversible error.

Violation of the Rules of Evidence Act: As stipulated in Section EVO-1(support evidence attached) of the aforementioned Act, evidence submitted in proceedings before this Magistrate Court must be solely drawn from StateCraft (Alexandria). This is not a mere procedural formality but a jurisdictional prerequisite ensuring the integrity and applicability of evidence. Any material originating from DemocracyCraft (Redmont) is, by statutory definition, inadmissible as it falls outside the competent jurisdiction of this tribunal. To rely on such extrinsic evidence would be prejudicial and contrary to established legal procedure as established by The Rules of Evidence ACT , Civil Procedure ACT and the Judiciary ACT.

CONCLUSION

Based on the insufficiency of evidence to meet the statutory burden of proof and the improper submission of extra-jurisdictional evidence, the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against 12700K. The charges are legally unsupported and must be dismissed in the interests of justice.

Respectfully submitted,

SrICEKING
Legal Representative for 12700K

Reference
Ibney0

Act of Parliament Thread 'A.P. 01-008| Rules of Evidence Act'

VOTE: 7-0-0
A
BILL
TO
Establish Rules of Evidence
In the Kingdom of Alexandria​

1 - Short Title and Enactment
(1) This Act may be cited as the 'Rules of Evidence Act'
(2) This Act shall be enacted immediately upon its signage. The passage of this act shall in no way affect cases currently in proceedings.
(3) This Act has been authored by Ibney0.
(4) This Act has been sponsored by Dartanboy

2 - Reasons and Scope
(1) The Court requires a rulebook for adjudicating evidentiary disputes.
(2) This act shall apply to all cases where a Court examines a case under their original...
Ibney0

Act of Parliament Thread 'A.P. 01-040 | Legal Framework Omnibus Amendments Act'

PARLIAMENT VOTING: 7-0-0
A
BILL
TO
Amend Several Laws within Alexandrian Law to Promote Productivity, Increase Effectiveness, and Ensure Workability​
1 - Short Title and Enactment
(1) This Act may be cited as the 'Legal Framework Omnibus Amendments Act'
(2) This Act shall be enacted immediately upon its signage. The passage of this act shall in no way affect cases currently in proceedings.
(3) This Act has been authored by Ibney0. This act has been cosponsored by Ameslap.

2 - Reasons and Legislative Findings
(1) After some just and testing, some laws within Alexandria...
 

Attachments

  • P-013.png
    P-013.png
    1.3 MB · Views: 2
  • P-014.png
    P-014.png
    1.3 MB · Views: 2
  • P-015.png
    P-015.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 1
  • P-016.png
    P-016.png
    1.9 MB · Views: 2
SrICEKING said:
OFFICIAL STATEMENT FROM THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF 12700K

My client, 12700K, hereby formally enters a plea of NOT GUILTY to each and every charge enumerated in the indictment, specifically:

a. Conspiracy to violate CCPA Sec. 21(3)(b);
b. One count of violating CCPA Sec. 21(3)(b) - Bribery;
c.Conspiracy to violate CCPA Sec. 20(6)(d) - Election Fraud;
d.Attempt to violate CCPA Sec. 20(6)(d) - Election Fraud.

MEMORANDUM OF DEFENSE FOR THE ACCUSED, 12700K

The defense respectfully submits the following grounds for the dismissal of all four (4) charges, based on fundamental deficiencies in the prosecution’s case.

I. FAILURE TO MEET THE BURDEN OF PROOF & INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE

Pursuant to the Rules of Evidence Act and legal framework omnibus Act, the prosecution bears the affirmative burden of proving each element of the alleged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. The proffered evidence—specifically Exhibits P-013, P-014, P-015, and P-016 is manifestly insufficient to sustain this burden, particularly concerning the essential elements of bribery and election fraud.

Critical Absence of a Quid Pro Quo (Money Transfer) Nexus: The core of a bribery charge under CCPA Sec. 21(3)(b) requires evidence of a corrupt exchange. The prosecution’s exhibits are wholly devoid of any documentation, record, or credible testimony demonstrating a financial transaction or transfer of valuables from the accused to any voter or election official. No “quid pro quo”(Money Transfer) has been established, thereby vitiating the very foundation of the bribery and related conspiracy charges.

II. IMPERMISSIBLE AND EXTRA-JURISDICTIONAL EVIDENCE

The defense objects to the admission of evidence sourced from outside the jurisdiction of this Court, as its consideration constitutes a reversible error.

Violation of the Rules of Evidence Act: As stipulated in Section EVO-1(support evidence attached) of the aforementioned Act, evidence submitted in proceedings before this Magistrate Court must be solely drawn from StateCraft (Alexandria). This is not a mere procedural formality but a jurisdictional prerequisite ensuring the integrity and applicability of evidence. Any material originating from DemocracyCraft (Redmont) is, by statutory definition, inadmissible as it falls outside the competent jurisdiction of this tribunal. To rely on such extrinsic evidence would be prejudicial and contrary to established legal procedure as established by The Rules of Evidence ACT , Civil Procedure ACT and the Judiciary ACT.

CONCLUSION

Based on the insufficiency of evidence to meet the statutory burden of proof and the improper submission of extra-jurisdictional evidence, the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against 12700K. The charges are legally unsupported and must be dismissed in the interests of justice.

Respectfully submitted,

SrICEKING
Legal Representative for 12700K

Reference
Ibney0

Act of Parliament Thread 'A.P. 01-008| Rules of Evidence Act'

VOTE: 7-0-0
A
BILL
TO
Establish Rules of Evidence
In the Kingdom of Alexandria​

1 - Short Title and Enactment
(1) This Act may be cited as the 'Rules of Evidence Act'
(2) This Act shall be enacted immediately upon its signage. The passage of this act shall in no way affect cases currently in proceedings.
(3) This Act has been authored by Ibney0.
(4) This Act has been sponsored by Dartanboy

2 - Reasons and Scope
(1) The Court requires a rulebook for adjudicating evidentiary disputes.
(2) This act shall apply to all cases where a Court examines a case under their original...
Ibney0

Act of Parliament Thread 'A.P. 01-040 | Legal Framework Omnibus Amendments Act'

PARLIAMENT VOTING: 7-0-0
A
BILL
TO
Amend Several Laws within Alexandrian Law to Promote Productivity, Increase Effectiveness, and Ensure Workability​
1 - Short Title and Enactment
(1) This Act may be cited as the 'Legal Framework Omnibus Amendments Act'
(2) This Act shall be enacted immediately upon its signage. The passage of this act shall in no way affect cases currently in proceedings.
(3) This Act has been authored by Ibney0. This act has been cosponsored by Ameslap.

2 - Reasons and Legislative Findings
(1) After some just and testing, some laws within Alexandria...
Click to expand...
Is your client retracting their previous plea of "no contest"?
 
Alright. Your client will still face a fine for Contempt of Court for missing the initial deadline (100 SC pounds).

We'll reopen Discovery for 72 hours, or we can end it sooner if both parties agree.

@ColonelKai @SrICEKING
 
IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY OF PROMPTING

Your Honor,

The Crown respectfully seeks clarification as to whether the Court in fact anticipates the filing of the Crown’s opening statement tomorrow in accordance with (#41), given that such a requirement at this stage would be procedurally unusual in light of the reopening of Discovery.

Respectfully Submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
MInister of Justice
KIngdom of Alexandria
 
Your honor, Could you provide some evidence to back up your claim about my client
 
IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF ALEXANDRIA

ENTREATY FOR DISMISS
Your Honor,

Counsel for the Defendant, 12700K, respectfully submits this entreaty for the dismissal of all charges presently before this Court. My client reaffirms his plea of NOT GUILTY to each count in the indictment.

The grounds for this motion are rooted in a fatal legal and evidentiary deficiency that voids the prosecution’s case in its entirety.

I. THE PROSECUTION’S CASE IS LEGALLY INSUSTAINABLE

The charges hinge upon evidence which this Court is statutorily barred from considering. Section 1(a) of the Criminal Code and Procedure Act explicitly mandates that “The Minister of Justice shall enforce all criminal law within the jurisdiction of Alexandria.”

A principled interpretation of this statute establishes a clear jurisdictional boundary: the enforcement authority—and by necessary extension, the adjudicative authority of this Court—is confined to criminal matters arising from and substantiated by evidence within the sovereign jurisdiction of StateCraft (Alexandria). Consequently, evidence procured from the foreign jurisdiction of DemocracyCraft (Redmont) is inadmissible perses.

The prosecution’s reliance on such extra-jurisdictional material constitutes a fundamental legal error. To permit its use would contravene the express territorial limits of this Court’s authority and the enforcement framework established by Parliament.

II. RESULTANT ABSENCE OF PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE

With the extra-jurisdictional evidence deemed void and inadmissible, the prosecution’s case collapses. No competent or admissible evidence remains to establish a prima facie case against the accused for the alleged violations of CCPA Sec. 21(3)(b) and Sec. 20(6)(d). The prosecution cannot meet its burden of proof where the foundational evidence is legally null.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, for the reasons stated herein, the Defense respectfully PRAYS that this Honorable Court:
1. Sustain our objection to all evidence originating from DemocracyCraft (Redmont).
2. Find that the prosecution has failed to present a legally sufficient, admissible case.
3. Dismiss all charges against the Defendant, 12700K, with prejudice.

Respectfully submitted,

SrICEKING
Legal Representative for Defendant 12700K



Support Material
Ibney0

Act of Parliament Thread 'A.P. 01-006 | Criminal Code and Procedure Act'

PARLIAMENT VOTE: 7-0-0
A
BILL
TO
Establish Criminal Procedures in the Kingdom of Alexandria
​
1 - Short Title and Enactment
(1) This Act may be cited as the 'Criminal Code and Procedure Act'
(2) This Act shall be enacted immediately upon its signage. The passage of this act shall in no way affect cases currently in proceedings.
(3) This Act has been authored by Ibney0 and Dartanboy.

2 - Reasons and Legislative Findings
(1) The Alexandrian Criminal Code and the Criminal Rights Act fail to establish a functioning criminal justice system.
(2) Additional procedural...
1770316021744.png




Below is the legal evidence provided by the prosecution. in support of the present charges against my client
P-016.png

P-015.png


P-014.png

p-013-png.1265
 

Attachments

  • P-014.png
    P-014.png
    1.3 MB · Views: 0
  • P-013.png
    P-013.png
    1.3 MB · Views: 11
SrICEKING said:
IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF ALEXANDRIA

ENTREATY FOR DISMISS
Your Honor,

Counsel for the Defendant, 12700K, respectfully submits this entreaty for the dismissal of all charges presently before this Court. My client reaffirms his plea of NOT GUILTY to each count in the indictment.

The grounds for this motion are rooted in a fatal legal and evidentiary deficiency that voids the prosecution’s case in its entirety.

I. THE PROSECUTION’S CASE IS LEGALLY INSUSTAINABLE

The charges hinge upon evidence which this Court is statutorily barred from considering. Section 1(a) of the Criminal Code and Procedure Act explicitly mandates that “The Minister of Justice shall enforce all criminal law within the jurisdiction of Alexandria.”

A principled interpretation of this statute establishes a clear jurisdictional boundary: the enforcement authority—and by necessary extension, the adjudicative authority of this Court—is confined to criminal matters arising from and substantiated by evidence within the sovereign jurisdiction of StateCraft (Alexandria). Consequently, evidence procured from the foreign jurisdiction of DemocracyCraft (Redmont) is inadmissible perses.

The prosecution’s reliance on such extra-jurisdictional material constitutes a fundamental legal error. To permit its use would contravene the express territorial limits of this Court’s authority and the enforcement framework established by Parliament.

II. RESULTANT ABSENCE OF PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE

With the extra-jurisdictional evidence deemed void and inadmissible, the prosecution’s case collapses. No competent or admissible evidence remains to establish a prima facie case against the accused for the alleged violations of CCPA Sec. 21(3)(b) and Sec. 20(6)(d). The prosecution cannot meet its burden of proof where the foundational evidence is legally null.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, for the reasons stated herein, the Defense respectfully PRAYS that this Honorable Court:
1. Sustain our objection to all evidence originating from DemocracyCraft (Redmont).
2. Find that the prosecution has failed to present a legally sufficient, admissible case.
3. Dismiss all charges against the Defendant, 12700K, with prejudice.

Respectfully submitted,

SrICEKING
Legal Representative for Defendant 12700K



Support Material
Ibney0

Act of Parliament Thread 'A.P. 01-006 | Criminal Code and Procedure Act'

PARLIAMENT VOTE: 7-0-0
A
BILL
TO
Establish Criminal Procedures in the Kingdom of Alexandria
​
1 - Short Title and Enactment
(1) This Act may be cited as the 'Criminal Code and Procedure Act'
(2) This Act shall be enacted immediately upon its signage. The passage of this act shall in no way affect cases currently in proceedings.
(3) This Act has been authored by Ibney0 and Dartanboy.

2 - Reasons and Legislative Findings
(1) The Alexandrian Criminal Code and the Criminal Rights Act fail to establish a functioning criminal justice system.
(2) Additional procedural...
View attachment 1264




Below is the legal evidence provided by the prosecution. in support of the present charges against my client
View attachment 1269

View attachment 1268


View attachment 1267

p-013-png.1265
Click to expand...
The Crown has 24 hours to respond to this Entreaty.

SoggehToast said:
IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY OF PROMPTING

Your Honor,

The Crown respectfully seeks clarification as to whether the Court in fact anticipates the filing of the Crown’s opening statement tomorrow in accordance with (#41), given that such a requirement at this stage would be procedurally unusual in light of the reopening of Discovery.

Respectfully Submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
MInister of Justice
KIngdom of Alexandria
Click to expand...

The previous order regarding filing Opening Statements is to be considered null and void. I shall request them once more when Discovery has concluded.

SrICEKING said:
Your honor, Could you provide some evidence to back up your claim about my client
Click to expand...

Councilor, you have eyes. You should be perfectly capable of discerning that 12700k missed the deadline to file a plea. Regardless, here is my initial order requesting 12700k file their plea, Saturday the 31st of January at 9:23pm, local time (GMT +1)

1770317567233.png

12700k had until Monday the 2nd, 9:23pm local time (again, GMT +1) to file a plea. He failed to do so. I even afforded him extra time to account for timezone differences, not giving my order until 10:39am on Tuesday the 3rd.

I have chosen to be lenient and allowed him to file his plea late, albeit with a fine for failing to comply with the initial order. Any late filings by either party in this court will also be subject to fines and potential jail time.
 
AmityBlamity said:
The Crown has 24 hours to respond to this Entreaty.



The previous order regarding filing Opening Statements is to be considered null and void. I shall request them once more when Discovery has concluded.



Councilor, you have eyes. You should be perfectly capable of discerning that 12700k missed the deadline to file a plea. Regardless, here is my initial order requesting 12700k file their plea, Saturday the 31st of January at 9:23pm, local time (GMT +1)

View attachment 1271

12700k had until Monday the 2nd, 9:23pm local time (again, GMT +1) to file a plea. He failed to do so. I even afforded him extra time to account for timezone differences, not giving my order until 10:39am on Tuesday the 3rd.

I have chosen to be lenient and allowed him to file his plea late, albeit with a fine for failing to comply with the initial order. Any late filings by either party in this court will also be subject to fines and potential jail time.
Click to expand...
IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF ALEXANDRIA

ENTREATY TO RECONSIDER SANCTION

Your Honor,

Counsel for the Defendant, 12700K, hereby submits this formal entreaty for the reconsideration and vacatur of the fine recently levied against my client. The imposition of this sanction is inappropriate and unjust under the circumstances, as it penalizes the Defendant for a systemic failure beyond his control.

The Criminal Code and Procedure Act guarantees the right to timely legal representation. The statute’s intent is clear: the state assumes the obligation to ensure that every accused individual is afforded a meaningful opportunity to mount a defense.

The factual record will demonstrate that the Ministry of Justice was not in a state of operational readiness to fulfill this statutory duty at the material time. Due to this administrative failure, my client was not provided with a public defender within the period prescribed by law.

A fundamental principle of justice holds that an accused cannot be penalized for the state's failure to uphold its own legal obligations. The delay in assigning counsel was not attributable to any action or omission by 12700K, but rather to a deficiency in the ministerial apparatus. To impose a fine under these conditions violates principles of due process and fairness, effectively punishing the Defendant for the government's lapse.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, the Defense respectfully PRAYS that this Honorable Court:

  1. Recognize that the fine was imposed under circumstances where the state failed to meet its prerequisite statutory duty.
  2. Find that holding the Defendant accountable for this systemic failure is contrary to justice.
  3. Reconsider and vacate the fine against 12700K.
Respectfully submitted,

SrICEKING
Legal Representative for Defendant 12700K



SUPPORT TO THIS SUBMISSION:
Ibney0

Act of Parliament Thread 'A.P. 01-006 | Criminal Code and Procedure Act'

PARLIAMENT VOTE: 7-0-0
A
BILL
TO
Establish Criminal Procedures in the Kingdom of Alexandria
​
1 - Short Title and Enactment
(1) This Act may be cited as the 'Criminal Code and Procedure Act'
(2) This Act shall be enacted immediately upon its signage. The passage of this act shall in no way affect cases currently in proceedings.
(3) This Act has been authored by Ibney0 and Dartanboy.

2 - Reasons and Legislative Findings
(1) The Alexandrian Criminal Code and the Criminal Rights Act fail to establish a functioning criminal justice system.
(2) Additional procedural...
1770318562291.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top