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

[Capt11543]

I'll rule on the objections after the Crown has replied to all of them (or doesn't reply and 24 hours have elapsed), in order to keep things organized.

IN THE MAGISTRATE’S COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY OF PROMPTING

Your Honor,

The Crown has replied to all of the Defense's objections. This trial is now awaiting a ruling from this Court on the objections before we may proceed.

The Crown respectfully asks when it and the Defense can expect a ruling on the objections.

Respectfully submitted,
Capt11543
Crown Counsel

 

[Gribble19]

I would hereby like to inform all parties that I will preside over this case from here on out. Please allow me some time to familiarize myself with the proceedings of this case up to this point. I will rule on any outstanding matters after doing so.

 

[Gribble19]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
WRIT OF DISMISSAL
​

This Court has been informed by Staff that 12700k has been permanently deported from StateCraft. ​

I. On the general effects of permanent deportation on legal proceedings​

It is clear that upon permanent deportation, one ceases to be a player of the game. This means that the in-game person of the permanently deported player has ceased to exist, or in other words, has been deceased. For all intents and purposes, we can therefore consider a permanently deported player’s in-game person to be deceased in the in-game world. We have thus established that upon permanent deportation, a player and their in-game person no longer exist as such.

One cannot claim relief against a non-existent party. See Plura72 V. Ministry Of Construction, Case 3 (Ch. 2025). By extension, this Court finds that one cannot bring criminal charges against a non-existent party, and that a non-existent party can in general not be a party to a legal proceeding.

However, while bringing charges or claiming relief against a non-existent party is by itself grounds for a Sua Sponte dismissal, this Court finds that the same does not apply when the party was originally existent and only became non-existent during the proceedings. Although the non-existent party can no longer be considered a valid party to the legal proceeding, it would not necessarily be fair to other parties to the legal proceeding were the claims or charges against the no-longer-existent party dismissed outright.

This Court finds that instead, in such a scenario, it should be considered, for each claim or charge against the party, whether the non-existence of the party would extinguish the particular claim or charge. In the case that it does not, this Court finds that the no-longer-existent party may be substituted with the existing party to which liability for the claim or charge would have been transferred, and that the claim or charge in question may proceed against the substituted party.

II. On the application to the case at hand​

In the case at hand, 12700k has been permanently deported and therefore no longer exists as a player. This Court has found that it does not make sense to allow the player 12700k to continue to be considered a party to this case. However, at the time criminal charges were originally brought against 12700k in this case, they were still an existent party. The Court will thus consider whether the criminal charges brought against 12700k in this case have been extinguished by 12700k’s permanent deportation which occured during proceedings.

III. On the extinguishment of criminal liability​

There is no statute or case law that provides direct guidance on when criminal liability is extinguished. It is however clear from the statute that for a party to be convicted of a crime, the party must be found to have both a guilty mind, and a guilty action. See A.P. 01-006. For the criminal liability of a player to be transferred to a different party upon the non-existence of the player, it would require that the act of the player ceasing to exist, would make a different party’s mind and actions guilty where they were not before. This Court rules that this is clearly not a reasonable possibility. A player’s mind and actions are strictly personal and under no circumstance could they be considered transferred to another party upon their deceasing, or their permanent deportation. As such, this Court finds that a player’s criminal liability for a criminal charge is extinguished upon the non-existence, and thus upon the permanent deportation, of that player.

Accordingly,
1. The charges brought against 12700k in this case are hereby DISMISSED Sua Sponte;
2. 12700k shall no longer be considered a party to this proceeding;
3. The proceeding will continue with the remaining parties.

So ordered,
Magistrate Gribble19​

 

[Gribble19]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
RULING ON OBJECTIONS
​

This Court, having taken into account the objections filed by a Defendant in #93 and the responses from Prosecution to these objections filed in #94 and #96, rules as follows:

Objection 1 — Compound Question (WonderRuby, Q1)
Sustained. The question asks three questions about seemingly distinct situations at once.

Objection 2 — Leading; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence (WonderRuby, Q5)
Sustained. The phrasing “what you would need to do in exchange for that £500” presumes that something has to be done in exchange for ‘that £500’ which is a contested fact in this case.

Objection 3 — Leading; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence (WonderRuby, Q6)
Sustained.

Objection 4 — Leading; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence (WonderRuby, Q10)
Sustained. The Court finds this question to be leading.

Objection 5 — Calls for Legal Conclusion (WonderRuby, Q11)
Overruled. The Court does not find the question calls for a legal conclusion, as the question does not pertain to whether or not the agreement satisfied the legal requirements of an agreement.

Objection 6 — Calls for Speculation (ConsequencesInc, Q4)
Sustained. The question asks the witness to speculate about someone else’s intentions.

Objection 7 — Hearsay (ConsequencesInc, Q5)
Sustained.

Objection 8 — Calls for Speculation (emilypancakes22, Q3)
Sustained. The question asks the witness to speculate about someone else’s intentions.

Accordingly,
Questions 1, 5, 6 and 10 asked by Prosecution to WonderRuby shall be struck;
Questions 4 and 5 asked by Prosecution to ConsequencesInc shall be struck;
Question 3 asked by Prosecution to emilypancakes22 shall be struck.

So ordered,
Magistrate Gribble19​

 

[Gribble19]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
WRIT OF PROMPTING
​

This Court has considered the entreaty of prompting filed by the Prosecution in #101.

As the Court has now ruled on all pending objections, the trial shall continue.

@emilypancakes22 Please answer questions 1,2,3 and 5 that have been asked to you in #92 within the next 48 hours.

@SoggehToast @Capt11543 @ColonelKai
The Prosecution shall have 24 hours to pose any further questions to witnesses WonderRuby and ConsequencesInc, who have already answered the questions asked to them so far. Alternatively, please inform the court within the same time limit in the case that the Prosecution wishes to pose no futher questions to these witnesses.

So ordered,
Magistrate Gribble19​