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

AmityBlamity said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
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.
 
MagistrateSeal.png
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​
 
MagistrateSeal.png
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​
 
MagistrateSeal.png
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​
 
SoggehToast said:
IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
QUESTIONS FOR WITNESSES

Thank you all for your participation. I have some questions to get us started.

For @emilypancakes22:

1. A conversation you had with Defendant 12700k has been admitted into evidence. See P-013 through P-016. What prompted this conversation?
2. Did you receive any further communications, apart from the messages directly admitted into evidence (P-013 through P-016) from 12700k on January 21st, 2026?
3. In P-013, 12700k can be seen saying "I'll pay you." Based on your knowledge, what exactly was 12700k offering you payment for?
4. Did 12700k ever specify what you would need to do to receive the offered payment?
5. Did 12700k at any point explicitly describe the task or service, if any, he wanted performed in exchange for the payment offered?
Click to expand...
1. No particular action on my part prompted this conversation.
2. No.
4. Based on context, it is abundantly clear that the payment would have been for voting for ANP.
5. Yes. "can you join statecraft (play.mcstatecraft.com) and walk straight from spawn, take the citizen test (free, no playtime), and then do /gps moia and then vote ANP first preference" are the exact instructions that were given.
 
IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
QUESTIONS FOR WITNESSES

@ConsequencesInc, thank you for your participation in this case. The following questions concern your background and qualifications and will be asked for the purpose of expert witness qualification in accordance with Section 11(2) of the Rules of Evidence Act.

6. Please describe your background and any positions you have held within the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
7. What responsibilities did your role as Minister entail, and what knowledge or expertise did you develop as a product of that role?
8. What information, if any, did you review or collect in connection with this case?
9. What methods or procedures did you apply when reviewing that information?
10. Do you believe those methods produce reliable results?
11. How would you apply your expertise to the facts of this case?

Respectfully Submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast.
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria
 
IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
QUESTIONS FOR WITNESSES

For @emilypancakes22:

6. In P-015, 12700k asked whether you could join the Statecraft server, complete the citizen test, and vote ANP as your first preference. You responded that you were "not going to give away a vote just cause I don’t play," after which 12700k stated, "I’ll pay you." Based on your understanding at the time, did you interpret that statement as proposing an exchange or arrangement between the two of you?

Respectfully Submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria
 
Last edited:
IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
QUESTIONS FOR WITNESSES

For @WonderRuby:

12. At any point during January 2026, did you vote for the Alexandrian National Party as a consequence of what you believed, based on your knowledge at the time, to be an offer of payment from Defendant Thritystone?

Respectfully Submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria
 
YOUR HONOR, Lead Counsel Nimq_ has retired from Statecraft, In his absence, I will take up the role of defense counsel for Defendant Thritystone.


OBJECTION
Legal conclusion / Invading the province of the court, Improper opinion testimony, Failure to Disclose, Relevance

The line of questioning calls for a legal conclusion. This invades the province of the Court. by calling on the witness to render a legal opinion as a former Minister of internal Affairs. There are no special facts or information which this witness in their "expert" capacity can produce which has not already been produced before this court in discovery, nor can this witness bring additional facts or evidence into this case. This witness must be questioned solely on the evidence provided in discovery.

The Crown also positions Mr Consequenses_inc as an expert witness as a result of his former role as Minister of internal Affairs. his experience is irrelevant as the matter before this court pertains to whether an act of bribery had even occurred. Unless this court grants that it is possible to be convicted of electoral fraud, but not bribery, whereby such logic warrants further scrutiny. The Witness in this capacity can only speculate to the effect of bribery or election fraud, not to the facts of whether such an act had even occurred.

The fact of the matter is, the Crown seeks to ask the Expert Witness to produce their own facts, then from the basis of those self-produced facts, render an opinion as it may pertain to the preview of the MOIA.


THE DEFENSE OBJECTS TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

8. What information, if any, did you review or collect in connection with this case? (OBJECTED: FAILURE TO DISCLOSE)

9. What methods or procedures did you apply when reviewing that information? (OBJECTED: RELEVANCE)

10. Do you believe those methods produce reliable results? (OBJECTED: CALLS FOR SPECULATION)

11. How would you apply your expertise to the facts of this case? (OBJECTED: CALLS FOR LEGAL OPNION)



SoggehToast said:
IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
QUESTIONS FOR WITNESSES

@ConsequencesInc, thank you for your participation in this case. The following questions concern your background and qualifications and will be asked for the purpose of expert witness qualification in accordance with Section 11(2) of the Rules of Evidence Act.

6. Please describe your background and any positions you have held within the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
7. What responsibilities did your role as Minister entail, and what knowledge or expertise did you develop as a product of that role?
8. What information, if any, did you review or collect in connection with this case?
9. What methods or procedures did you apply when reviewing that information?
10. Do you believe those methods produce reliable results?
11. How would you apply your expertise to the facts of this case?

Respectfully Submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast.
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria
Click to expand...
 
IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS

Your Honor,

Under Section 11(2) of A.P. 01-008, the Crown must establish that expert testimony is "based on sufficient facts or data" before such testimony is admissible. The question posed to ConsequencesInc addresses precisely that requirement. It is not, as the Defendant contends, "new evidence," and it does not constitute a breach of procedure. It constitutes the proper procedure for qualifying an expert witness under the Rules of Evidence Act.

The Defendant is also fundamentally confused about the purpose of witness testimony. Witness testimony exists to elicit facts and information from witnesses before the court. Under the Defendant's interpretation, all witness testimony would be impermissible, because it exists precisely to establish facts not already in the possession of the court.

Additionally, the Defendant objects to the question posed to @ConsequencesInc on the basis of "FAILURE TO DISCLOSE." The Crown has asked a witness a question, seeking information from them before this court. This should not be misconstrued as a reference to evidence the Crown possessed but failed to disclose. The Defendant has identified no such evidence, because none exists. Asking witnesses questions to elicit facts is an ordinary and recognized part of court proceedings.

A substantially identical issue arose in The Crown v. Stratton LLC, Emmet99, Maelzarun, Mr_GrapeJelly, Talion77, Case 11 (Mag. Ct., 2025), where similar objections were raised and largely overruled here (#202). The Magistrates Court permitted Ibney0, who was subsequently granted expert witness status, to speak to the accuracy of the methods underlying their analysis, despite objections nearly identical to those raised here. The Court further permitted the Crown to question the prospective expert on evidence and data collected during their investigation. The Defendant has also suggested that asking a prospective expert witness whether their methods were reliable constitutes a call for speculation. However, the Magistrates Court likewise permitted this line of questioning when previously posed to Ibney0.

Respectfully Submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria
 
@ConsequencesInc, please answer questions 6 and 7 that have been asked to you in #108 within the next 48 hours. Please do not answer the other questions asked to you for now.

@emilypancakes22, please answer the question that has been asked to you in #109 within the next 48 hours.

@WonderRuby, please answer the question that has been asked to you in #110 within the next 48 hours.

The Court will rule on the pending objections after questions 6 and 7 have been answered by ConsequencesInc.
 
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT

12

Question:
At any point during January 2026, did you vote for the Alexandrian National Party as a consequence of what you believed, based on your knowledge at the time, to be an offer of payment from Defendant Thritystone?

Answer:
Yes. I voted for the ANP based on the expectation that I would be compensated by Defendant Thritystone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top