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

IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA

DEFENSE OPENING STATEMENT (THRITYSTONE)

May it please the Court.

I. INTRODUCTION

Before we begin laying out our arguments, we must respond to the Crown's opening statement and the theory it has presented to this court. The Crown has told you a rhetorical story about "purchasing democracy." I remind the court that This Court is not here to decide whether it dislikes the defendants' politics, their tone, or their campaign tactics. This Court is here to decide a narrow and more serious question: whether the Crown can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Thritystone committed the specific crimes charged, under the Criminal Code and Procedure Act.

The Crown asks you to believe that a gift of £250, given freely, with no conditions, in direct response to a new player asking "Can I have some money for free?", was a bribe for a vote. The Crown's own evidence proves otherwise, and the defense will demonstrate why.

I ask the Court to keep two things in mind:

  1. The Crown must prove each element of each charge beyond a reasonable doubt, as the Code defines it: proof that leaves you firmly convinced and leaves no other reasonable conclusion. See A.P. 01-006 §4(10).
  2. The burden never shifts. The defendant does not have to prove innocence. The Crown must prove guilt. See id. at §16(1).
If the Crown cannot prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the verdict is not "maybe." It is not guilty. The Crown has asked you to make a leap: that money was offered "for votes," that a party staffing plan was a disguised bribe scheme, and that later conversations transform earlier payments into crimes.

But criminal law must consider only FACTS, not SPECULATION (which is what the crown's opening statement largely relies). The law requires actus reus and mens rea: a guilty act and a guilty mind. It is the Court's job to apply it.

A.P. 01-006 §5(1) states:

  • a crime requires both a guilty mind (intent), and
  • a guilty action, meaning the defendant moved their body in a defined way through that guilty mind to commit the crime.
Our defense hinges on the timing of these alleged guilty acts, and guilty minds. Intent must exist at the time of the alleged criminal act. A lawful act does not become criminal later because a later conversation can be spun as suspicious. That is the Crown's central problem in this case.

II. The Crown's Burden of Proof

The Crown has charged Thritystone with four things:

  1. Conspiracy to commit Bribery
  2. Conspiracy to commit Electoral Fraud
  3. Bribery
  4. Attempted Electoral Fraud
This Court should hold the Crown to the elements, not to broad accusations.

A. Bribery (A.P. 01-006 §21(3)(b))

The law is very specific:

"A player is guilty of bribery if they persuade someone to commit an illegal or immoral act in exchange for a benefit."

So the Crown must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, all of this:

  1. There was an offer of a benefit (money or value),
  2. it was offered in exchange for something, meaning a quid pro quo—a trade, a deal, a condition,
  3. the thing being purchased was an illegal or immoral act, and
  4. Thritystone had the required intent at the time: he intended that exchange.
You will hear the Crown describe the "immoral act" as selling a vote. But the Court must still ask: did the evidence prove an actual exchange was proposed and agreed to, or is this a story built backward from a payment that occurred for another reason? Because money existing near politics is not enough. People donate money. Parties hire staff. Players give gifts. None of those are crimes unless the Crown proves an exchange for an illegal or immoral act.

B. Electoral Fraud (A.P. 01-006 §20(6)(d)) + Attempted Electoral Fraud

Electoral fraud requires proof that the defendant intentionally and illegally altered the outcome of an election. Attempting Electoral Fraud requires more than casual conversation. Attempt requires:

  1. specific intent to commit the offense, and
  2. a substantial step toward illegally altering the outcome.
The Crown must prove illegality. Not "it feels wrong." Not "it undermines democracy." Illegally alter the outcome. And the Crown cannot just assume "illegality" from a political controversy. They must prove the illegal act that constitutes election fraud.

We will demonstrate that Thritystone never intended any illegal act, never took substantial steps towards committing the illegal act, and in fact took active steps to prevent an illegal act.

C. Conspiracy (A.P. 01-006 §19(3))

Conspiracy is not "two people are in the same party" and not "two people are accused of similar things."

The statute requires:

  1. multiple players had specific intent to commit a crime,
  2. they agreed to commit that crime, and
  3. at least one took an overt act in furtherance of that agreement.
So the Crown must prove a real agreement and not just make circumstantial assumptions from parallel conduct, not vague association, not "they were both candidates." You will see there is no evidence that Thritystone agreed with 12700k to bribe votes or commit election fraud. No witness will testify to knowledge of such an agreement. All the crown possesses is circumstantial screenshots from a public discord. The defense holds that there was no coordination, no cooperation, no agreement, no specific intent, no transfer of funds which occurred between Thritystone and defendant 12700k.

III. THE £250 WAS A FREE GIFT—NOT A BRIBE

Now to the core allegation the Crown placed at the center of its indictment.

The Crown claims that on January 19, WonderRuby "was offered at least £250 in exchange for voting for the Alexandria National Party." But the evidence the Crown relies on shows something entirely different. The Crown's own exhibit P-009 contains the complete conversation between Thritystone and WonderRuby. We urge the Court to look at what actually happened, rather than the Crown's characterization of what happened.

WonderRuby was a new player. He was poor. He was looking for ways to make money. He asked Thritystone: "How do I make money?" Thritystone gave him advice about selling iron. And then WonderRuby asked, plainly and directly: "Can I have some money for free?" Thritystone, being generous, gave WonderRuby £250. No conditions were discussed. No mention of voting. No strings attached. WonderRuby said "Thank you!" and that was the end of it.

Only after the £250 was already given, after the money had changed hands, after the transaction was complete, did the conversation drift into politics and campaign involvement.

The sequence is simple:

  • WonderRuby asks for free money.
  • Thritystone sends £250 almost immediately.
  • Only later does the conversation drift into politics and campaign involvement.
That matters because the Crown is trying to treat a transfer as proof of a bribe without proving a quid pro quo at the time of the transfer. The £250 was a charitable gift to a new player who asked for free money. That is all. The Crown cannot transform a gift into a bribe simply because a separate conversation happened afterward. A charitable donation does not become a criminal act because of what was discussed later.

IV. THE CAMPAIGN POSITION WAS NEVER PAID

After the £250 gift, and we must stress, after, Thritystone discussed a campaign staffer position with WonderRuby. The terms discussed for this campaign position were £500, plus a bonus if ANP won. These are different numbers. This is a different transaction. And critically, WonderRuby was never paid for this position.

The only payment that ever occurred between Thritystone and WonderRuby was the £250 gift, given before any campaign discussion, in response to a request for "free money." Not £500. Not a bonus. £250, given to a new player who asked for it. The Crown's theory requires you to believe that £250 was payment for a vote, when the £250 was given in response to "Can I have some money for free?", when the campaign discussion happened after the £250 was already given, when the campaign position discussed a different amount entirely, £500 plus bonus, and when no payment was ever made for the campaign position.

We must ask: if thritystone never paid someone for a vote, and never agreed or entered into an agreement to pay someone for a vote, then what "guilty act" is the crown alledging constitutes the act of bribery? If the Crown cannot show that the £250 was offered as consideration for a vote, then it cannot satisfy the elements of bribery. And if bribery falls, the Crown's election fraud theory, premised on that bribery, collapses with it.

If thritystone never paid someone for a vote, and never agreed or entered into an agreement to pay someone for a vote, then the only logical conclusion this court can make, is NOT GUILTY.

V. THE CROWN CONFLATES TWO SEPARATE EVENTS

The Crown's entire case is built upon a post hoc fallacy: the assumption that because one event follows another, the first event must have caused the second. The Crown wants this court to reason backwards: WonderRuby voted for ANP, therefore the £250 must have been for the vote. But that is not how criminal law works.

The actual sequence of events, as the Crown's own evidence shows, was this:

  1. Thritystone gave WonderRuby £250 (a charitable gift, in response to "Can I have some money for free?")
  2. Later, Thritystone discussed a campaign staffer position (a separate event entirely)
  3. WonderRuby voted for ANP (which is their constitutional right)
The Crown says: Payment, then Vote, therefore bribery. But the evidence shows: Free gift, then a separate campaign discussion, then WonderRuby made their own choice. Correlation is not causation. The crown is indulging this court in post hoc storytelling, falling far short of demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt as required in a criminal standard for conviction. The Crown wants the Court to infer that because political talk happened later, the earlier money must have been "for votes." But as we have stated, A.P. 01-006 §5(1) requires that intent must exist at the time of the guilty act. Intent must be measured at the moment of the act, not reconstructed after the fact. The £250 was given with charitable intent, in response to a direct request for free money. Where there is ambiguity and a lawful alternative explanation, the Crown cannot meet the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

And when the issue was put plainly to Thritystone, vote for money, Thritystone repudiated it. You will see something the Crown cannot avoid. When confronted directly, Thritystone said:

"I never said vote for me and get paid. we don't do that."

That statement matters because it does two things at once:

  1. It contradicts the Crown's claim of an existing quid pro quo deal.
  2. It supports the defense explanation that any money discussion was tied to campaign work, not purchasing a ballot.
The Crown will ask you to treat later repudiation as meaningless and earlier speculation as conclusive. But again, the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. Where there is repudiation, ambiguity, and a lawful alternative explanation, the Crown cannot meet that burden.

VI. Campaign staffing is not a crime, and the Court must not invent campaign finance law

The Crown has tried to reframe lawful campaign staffing as "hiring voters." The Crown's opening statement directly attacks the ANP's campaign staffing program, arguing that the £4,000 campaign budget was "deliberately employed as an instrument for bribery." But this argument asks the Court to do something it cannot do: create a crime that does not exist.

This Court has a duty under A.P. 01-006 §15(1):

Any law which purports to create criminal liability must be located within the Criminal Code and Procedure Act. If a law is not located within this act, a player cannot be held criminally liable.

There are no campaign finance crimes in the Code. There is no statute that says:

  • you cannot hire campaign staff,
  • you cannot structure a bonus,
  • you cannot reward organizers based on performance, or
  • you cannot spend party funds on political operations.
So the Crown cannot ask the Court to convict someone for "campaign finance misconduct" when that crime does not exist. And more importantly, the Crown's own evidence actually proves our defense. P-010 shows a job posting for campaign staffers, an open recruitment, offering "100 per MP elected." P-011 shows a convention agenda with £4,000 allocated for campaign expenses, including payroll. P-012 shows Thritystone recruiting campaign staffers. This was not a secret bribery scheme. This was a party-authorized, openly documented campaign staffing program. The kind of normal political activity that every party engages in.

If the Crown believes campaign staffing schemes should be regulated or criminalized, that is a matter for Parliament in the future. This Court cannot create a new criminal rule after the fact and apply it to this defendant now. The defense submits that it would be a dangerous precedent for this court to criminalize standard political party operations under the bribery statute, when no law prohibits them.

VII. THE COURT SHOULD SCRUTINIZE WonderRuby's MOTIVES

You will also see evidence, and later hear in cross examination, that WonderRuby told a Labor candidate that Thritystone "paid him 250 for his vote," and in the same evidence, WonderRuby is shopping that "vote" around and trying to get someone else to pay more.

This matters for two reasons:

  1. It shows motive to misrepresent. If someone is trying to auction a vote to the highest bidder, they have every incentive to frame a donation as a bribe. WonderRuby had a financial interest in depicting the £250 gift as vote-buying, because that narrative made his "vote" more valuable to other parties.
  2. It shows the Crown's case depends heavily on a narrator whose conduct is itself opportunistic and inconsistent. The Crown is building its criminal case on the characterizations of a witness who was actively trying to profit from the very narrative the Crown is now presenting as fact.
The defense is asking the Court to consider the reliability of WonderRuby as a narrator. We know that Wonder_Ruby was poor when he first joined the server. We know that Wonder_Ruby, prior to asking for free money, was looking for job opportunities. We are asking the Court to be careful: when the Crown builds a criminal case on what someone claims a payment "really meant," credibility and context become everything. Wonder_Ruby was given a donation, and later offered a job. These offers followed seamlessly from prior conversations. A new player looking for money, being helped out, and then being offered legitimate campaign work. That is not bribery. That is a political party recruiting.

VIII. Voting is not an "Immoral Act"

Even if the Crown could prove the £250 was somehow connected to voting, which it cannot, the bribery charge still fails on its elements.

The law is very specific. Bribery under A.P. 01-006 §21(3)(b) requires persuading someone to commit an "illegal or immoral act" in exchange for a benefit. But voting is neither illegal nor immoral. It is a constitutional right. See K.A. Const. § V Art. 22(2) ("Every citizen has the right to vote in elections.").

The Crown cannot criminalize the exercise of a constitutional right. You will hear the Crown describe the "immoral act" as selling a vote. But the Court must still ask: did the evidence prove an actual exchange was proposed and agreed to, or is this a story built backward from a payment that occurred for another reason? The act of voting, regardless of the voter's motivation, is a legal act protected by the Constitution. The Crown's interpretation of "immoral act" would have dangerous implications: it would criminalize campaign contributions, door prizes at rallies, free food at political events, and any benefit that coincides with a vote. That cannot be what the statute intended.

IX. What you should expect from the evidence at trial

At the end of this case, the Court will not be deciding whether political vote-buying is bad in theory. It will be deciding whether the Crown proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Thritystone:

  • offered money in exchange for a vote,
  • intended that exchange at the time of the payment, (a payment which the crown has not proven occurred as consideration for a vote)
  • committed an illegal or immoral act as the statute requires, and
  • formed a criminal agreement with 12700k to do so.
The defense expects the evidence will show:

  1. The £250 payment happened before any vote-buying discussion. It was given freely, in direct response to WonderRuby asking "Can I have some money for free?" That is a gift. It is not a bribe.
  2. The staffing program was open, party-authorized, and consistent with ordinary campaign operations. The Crown's own exhibits prove this.
  3. The Crown has no clear evidence of a quid pro quo agreement tying the £250 to a vote. The Crown has a gift, a later conversation, and a vote, but no agreement connecting them.
  4. The Crown's conspiracy claim is an assumption based on party association, not proof of agreement and overt act. There is no communication, no coordination, and no agreement between Thritystone and 12700k.
  5. WonderRuby's own behavior shows motive to distort and shop a narrative. The Crown's central witness was actively trying to profit from the story he was telling.
And when you apply the law, A.P. 01-006 §4(10) beyond a reasonable doubt, id. at §5(1) guilty mind and guilty action, id. at §15(1) criminal liability must be located in the Code, and the specific statutory elements of each charge, the only lawful verdict will be not guilty.

Thank you, Your Honor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top