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

[SoggehToast]

IN THE MAGISTRATE’S COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
RESPONSE TO "RESPONSE OF THE DEFENDANT 12700K TO CROWN’S SUBMISSION ON JURISDICTION AND EVIDENTIARY ADMISSIBILITY"

Your Honor,

The Defendant’s persistent confusion between the distinct legal principles of jurisdiction and evidentiary admissibility has proven to be unrelenting. The Crown therefore finds it necessary to address both subjects, for the purpose of persuading the Court that the territorial origin of the evidence in question is a legally uninteresting matter which, upon even minimal inspection, should be deemed irrelevant to its admissibility.

There are two questions currently being conflated which it is useful, for the purposes of this objection, to separate. The first concerns evidentiary admissibility. The Defense would have this Court believe that, because the evidence was collected outside of Alexandrian territory, it is therefore inadmissible before this Court. However, no such standard exists in the Rules of Evidence Act, which imposes no limitation on the admissibility of evidence based on territorial origin.

The second is whether some conduct which occurred outside of Alexandrian territory may nevertheless be subject to criminal prosecution. The only reasonable answer is yes, though it is necessary to explain why this is so. Both the Magistrates Court and the Chancery have repeatedly and consistently permitted the prosecution of conduct which, strictly speaking, occurred outside of Alexandrian territory. Under the Defense’s interpretation, virtually any conduct not occurring in-game or on the StateCraft Discord server would fall beyond the reach of prosecution, including, but not limited to, education fraud, election fraud, criminal conspiracies, espionage, the leaking of classified information, extortion, and new player fraud. It is the logical consequence of the Defense’s position that offenses such as espionage, the unauthorized disclosure of classified information, or extortion would be lawful so long as they occurred in Redmont, via direct messages, or on external Discord servers.

This view is wholly untenable. Such offenses rarely occur through in-game messages, which are largely publicly accessible, or on the StateCraft Discord server, which is likewise public. The proposition that one may lawfully extort the Prime Minister — or even more alarmingly, Magistrate AmityBlamity — so long as they do so in the privacy of direct Discord messages, is quite simply absurd.

The Crown again reiterates this Court has jurisdiction over the matter in question, because the crimes charged are Alexandrian crimes, committed against Alexandrian interests, involving conduct that occurred in, or were intended to occur in, Alexandria.

Respectfully submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria

 

[AmityBlamity]

IN THE MAGISTRATE’S COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA


DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S PRELIMINARY RULING ON THE ENTREATY TO SUPPRESS & NOTICE OF OBJECTION

TO THE HONORABLE MAGISTRATE:

The Defendant, 12700K, through undersigned counsel, acknowledges the Court’s preliminary ruling to reserve judgment on the Defense’s Entreaty to Suppress evidence originating from DemocracyCraft (Redmont). However, the Defense must formally object to this procedural course of action on grounds of fundamental fairness, due process, and the statutory framework governing trials, and requests the Court reconsider its decision to defer the ruling.

I. DEFERRING A RULING ON ADMISSIBILITY TO VERDICT CONSTITUTES REVERSIBLE ERROR AND PREJUDICE.

The purpose of a pre-trial Entreaty to Suppress, as codified in CCPA Sec. 10(3)(b), is to resolve questions of admissibility before evidence is presented to the trier of fact. The Rules of Evidence Act, Sec. 4(4), is unequivocal: “The court shall not consider evidence which has been excluded for the merits of the case.”

By postponing a ruling until verdict, the Court creates an untenable and prejudicial situation:
1. Prejudice to the Defendant: The Crown will present the disputed evidence during its case-in-chief. Regardless of any later ruling, its impact—the very “unfair prejudice” contemplated by Rules of Evidence Act Sec. 8(3)—cannot be un-heard by the Court acting as the trier of fact. This violates the core principle behind suppression motions.
2. Procedural Impropriety: It effectively requires the Defendant to stand trial based on evidence that may be fundamentally inadmissible. This contravenes the statutory sequence established in the CCPA, where evidentiary disputes are to be resolved during the pre-trial discovery and entreaty phase (CCPA Sec. 10(3)).
3. Burden and Confusion: It forces the Defense to simultaneously argue the *weight* of the evidence (during trial) and its *admissibility* (at verdict), conflating two distinct legal analyses and prejudicing the Defense’s ability to present a clear case.

II. THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE IS A THRESHOLD LEGAL QUESTION, NOT A FACTUAL ONE FOR VERDICT.

The question presented is not whether the DemocracyCraft evidence is persuasive, but whether this Court, under the Rules of Evidence Act Sec. 2(1), is legally permitted to consider it at all. This is a pure question of law regarding the scope of the Court’s original jurisdiction and the applicable rules of evidence.

Deciding this legal question after the trial’s conclusion turns the proper procedure on its head. The verdict stage (CCPA Sec. 10(6)) is for determining guilt based solely on admissible evidence. To first consider the evidence, then decide if it was permissible to consider it, is logically and legally flawed.

III. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION & ALTERNATIVE RELIEF

In the interest of judicial economy and to prevent a potential mistrial or reversible error on appeal, the Defense respectfully requests the Court to:

1. Reconsider and rule on the Entreaty to Suppress prior to the commencement of the Crown’s case-in-chief, as contemplated by statute; or, in the alternative,
2. Issue a binding preliminary finding under Rules of Evidence Act Sec. 5(1) that the evidence is conditionally admitted, subject to a final ruling on its admissibility as a matter of law at the close of the Crown’s case, but before the Defense is required to present its case. This would at least allow the Defense to know the evidentiary landscape before deciding on trial strategy.

A deferral to verdict deprives the Defense of a fair opportunity to respond to the case actually presented and is inconsistent with the procedural safeguards of the CCPA and Rules of Evidence Act.

CONCLUSION

The Defense maintains that the evidence from DemocracyCraft is inadmissible. Postponing a ruling on this critical issue risks trying the Defendant with evidence that may be statutorily barred, undermining the integrity of the proceedings. The Court has the authority and duty to rule on this entreaty now.

Respectfully submitted,

SrICEKING
Legal Representative for Defendant 12700K

Denied. I will hear no further arguments on this matter at this time.

 

[SrICEKING]

IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA


MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ENTREATY TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO ESTABLISH A PRIMA FACIE CASE

TO THE HONORABLE MAGISTRATE:

The Defendant, 12700K, through undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this memorandum in renewed support of its Entreaty to Dismiss all charges, pursuant to CCPA Sec. 10(3)(e), for "such a lack of evidence that a reasonable magistrate could never find the player guilty."

Given the Court's rulings on procedural matters, the Defense now focuses the Court's attention on the fundamental, substantive failure of the prosecution's case: the complete absence of evidence to satisfy the actus reus (guilty act) of the charged offenses.

I. THE LEGAL STANDARD: ELEMENTS OF THE CHARGED CRIMES

The prosecution bears the burden to prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt (CCPA Sec. 4(10), Sec. 16). The relevant elements for the core charges are:

* Bribery (CCPA Sec. 21(3)(b)): Requires proof of a corrupt exchange—a benefit offered or given to persuade someone to commit an illegal or immoral act.
* Conspiracy & Attempt (CCPA Sec. 19): Require proof of a substantial step or overt act in furtherance of the underlying crime (here, bribery or election fraud). Without proof of the underlying criminal agreement or action, these inchoate offenses cannot stand

II. FATAL EVIDENTIARY DEFICIENCY: ABSENCE OF THE QUID PRO QUO

The Crown's entire theory of the case hinges on an alleged agreement to exchange a benefit for votes. However, the evidence provided (Exhibits P-013 to P-016) is devoid of any proof of a benefit being conferred, offered, or transferred.

1. No Financial Transaction: There is no record, screenshot, bank log, or witness testimony showing a transfer of funds, items, or any tangible asset from 12700K to any voter or official. An alleged bribery scheme without proof of payment is legally indistinguishable from an unfulfilled idea or mere conversation.
2. No Proof of Other Consideration: The Crown has not alleged or provided evidence of any non-monetary benefit (e.g., promises of future office, services, or privileges) that constitutes the "benefit" element of bribery under CCPA Sec. 21(3)(b).
3. The "Agreement" Itself is Not the Crime: The crime of bribery is not the discussion of a potential corrupt act; it is the execution of that corrupt exchange. CCPA Sec. 5(1) requires both a guilty mind (mens rea) and a guilty action (actus reus). The prosecution may allege intent, but it has provided zero evidence of the requisite guilty action—the provision of a benefit.

III. APPLICATION TO THE SPECIFIC CHARGES

* Charge B (One Violation of Bribery): Fails as the actus reus of providing a benefit is wholly unsubstantiated.
* Charges A & C (Conspiracy to Commit Bribery/Election Fraud): Fail because the alleged overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy are the very same discussions that lack evidence of a concrete benefit. Without proof of a benefit, there is no plausible "substantial step" toward completing the underlying bribery. A conspiracy requires an agreement to commit a crime, not just an agreement to talk.
* Charge D (Attempted Election Fraud): Fails for identical reasons. A "substantial step" toward election fraud via bribery presupposes a step toward completing the bribe. No evidence of a benefit = no substantial step toward the completion of the crime.

IV. CONCLUSION: A LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT CASE

The Crown asks this Court to infer the completion of a criminal transaction based solely on alleged discussions of intent. This is not merely weak evidence; it is legally insufficient evidence. To allow this case to proceed to trial would permit a conviction based on speculation about what might have happened, rather than proof of what did happen. This violates the foundational principles of the CCPA and the burden of proof.

A "reasonable magistrate," viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, could never find the element of a conferred benefit proven beyond a reasonable doubt, because that evidence does not exist in the record.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, for the reasons stated herein, Defendant 12700K respectfully requests that this Honorable Court GRANT the Entreaty to Dismiss all charges (A, B, C, and D) with prejudice.

Respectfully submitted,

SrICEKING
Legal Representative for Defendant 12700K

 

[AmityBlamity]

IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA


MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ENTREATY TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO ESTABLISH A PRIMA FACIE CASE

TO THE HONORABLE MAGISTRATE:

The Defendant, 12700K, through undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this memorandum in renewed support of its Entreaty to Dismiss all charges, pursuant to CCPA Sec. 10(3)(e), for "such a lack of evidence that a reasonable magistrate could never find the player guilty."

Given the Court's rulings on procedural matters, the Defense now focuses the Court's attention on the fundamental, substantive failure of the prosecution's case: the complete absence of evidence to satisfy the actus reus (guilty act) of the charged offenses.

I. THE LEGAL STANDARD: ELEMENTS OF THE CHARGED CRIMES

The prosecution bears the burden to prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt (CCPA Sec. 4(10), Sec. 16). The relevant elements for the core charges are:

* Bribery (CCPA Sec. 21(3)(b)): Requires proof of a corrupt exchange—a benefit offered or given to persuade someone to commit an illegal or immoral act.
* Conspiracy & Attempt (CCPA Sec. 19): Require proof of a substantial step or overt act in furtherance of the underlying crime (here, bribery or election fraud). Without proof of the underlying criminal agreement or action, these inchoate offenses cannot stand

II. FATAL EVIDENTIARY DEFICIENCY: ABSENCE OF THE QUID PRO QUO

The Crown's entire theory of the case hinges on an alleged agreement to exchange a benefit for votes. However, the evidence provided (Exhibits P-013 to P-016) is devoid of any proof of a benefit being conferred, offered, or transferred.

1. No Financial Transaction: There is no record, screenshot, bank log, or witness testimony showing a transfer of funds, items, or any tangible asset from 12700K to any voter or official. An alleged bribery scheme without proof of payment is legally indistinguishable from an unfulfilled idea or mere conversation.
2. No Proof of Other Consideration: The Crown has not alleged or provided evidence of any non-monetary benefit (e.g., promises of future office, services, or privileges) that constitutes the "benefit" element of bribery under CCPA Sec. 21(3)(b).
3. The "Agreement" Itself is Not the Crime: The crime of bribery is not the discussion of a potential corrupt act; it is the execution of that corrupt exchange. CCPA Sec. 5(1) requires both a guilty mind (mens rea) and a guilty action (actus reus). The prosecution may allege intent, but it has provided zero evidence of the requisite guilty action—the provision of a benefit.

III. APPLICATION TO THE SPECIFIC CHARGES

* Charge B (One Violation of Bribery): Fails as the actus reus of providing a benefit is wholly unsubstantiated.
* Charges A & C (Conspiracy to Commit Bribery/Election Fraud): Fail because the alleged overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy are the very same discussions that lack evidence of a concrete benefit. Without proof of a benefit, there is no plausible "substantial step" toward completing the underlying bribery. A conspiracy requires an agreement to commit a crime, not just an agreement to talk.
* Charge D (Attempted Election Fraud): Fails for identical reasons. A "substantial step" toward election fraud via bribery presupposes a step toward completing the bribe. No evidence of a benefit = no substantial step toward the completion of the crime.

IV. CONCLUSION: A LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT CASE

The Crown asks this Court to infer the completion of a criminal transaction based solely on alleged discussions of intent. This is not merely weak evidence; it is legally insufficient evidence. To allow this case to proceed to trial would permit a conviction based on speculation about what might have happened, rather than proof of what did happen. This violates the foundational principles of the CCPA and the burden of proof.

A "reasonable magistrate," viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, could never find the element of a conferred benefit proven beyond a reasonable doubt, because that evidence does not exist in the record.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, for the reasons stated herein, Defendant 12700K respectfully requests that this Honorable Court GRANT the Entreaty to Dismiss all charges (A, B, C, and D) with prejudice.

Respectfully submitted,

SrICEKING
Legal Representative for Defendant 12700K

Denied. We are still in Discovery. You can renew your Entreaty to Dismiss on the basis of the evidence afterward, and I'll make a ruling then.