Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This entreaty is denied in its entirety. Writs of striking are specifically pertaining either to objectionable content or frivolous/scandalous portions of a pleading, claim, or defence. The legal concept of "non-responsive," born of Redmontian law, does not exist in the Kingdom of Alexandria.IN THE HONOURABLE MAGISTRATE OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CRIMINAL ACTION
Case No.: 6
ENTREATY OF STRIKING AND ADMONISHING
Your Honor,
The Defense moves that the Court strikes Noble PhillinDeBlanc's answer to questions #9 and #10 due to being non-responsive, and that the Court directs him to answer the questions.
In Question #9, The plugin has nothing to do with the question that was asked of the witness, which was how did he personally make the determination at the defendant's arrest that it was murder and not something else.
In Question #10, the Defense did not ask what the wanted star shows. The witness was asked if a wanted star for sure, and without a reasonable doubt, meets the legal definition and burden of proof of a murder.
If the witness does not know or is unsure of the answers to these specific questions and the complexities involved, the Defense is okay with hearing "I do not know" as an answer instead of irrelevant testimony.
The Defense also humbly requests that the Court officially admonish the Noble Constable as a particular individual for being non-responsive to multiple questions being asked of him both now and previously, as he is now starting to waste both the Defense's and the Court's time.
Submitted Respectfully,
∴ ⨿🝛
The Artist Formerly Known as ConsequencesInc
5/25/2026
This entreaty is denied.IN THE HONOURABLE MAGISTRATE OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CRIMINAL ACTION
Case No.: 6
ENTREATY FOR IMMUNITY
Your honor,
While the witnesses does have his right to remain silent, I believe that there are options for the Court to consider.
The witnesses' right to not self-incriminate is important, and his testimony on these questions will also be important to determining my client's innocence. I think this is the best way to ensure the witness still can testify today.
I move that the Court request that the Crown grants the witness transactional immunity so that the he cannot be charged with a crime related to his conduct during Thritystone's arrest, and that if the Crown refuses that the Court grant the witness derivative use immunity so that his testimony in response to these questions cannot be used as evidence against him.
Submitted Respectfully,
∴ ⨿🝛
The Artist Formerly Known as ConsequencesInc
5/331/2026
@SoggehToastIN THE HONOURABLE MAGISTRATE OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CRIMINAL ACTION
Case No.: 6
ENTREATY TO INTRODUCE IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE
Your honor,
Given the Noble PhillinDeBlanc's answer to question 8 posed to him, the Defense wishes to introduce impeachment evidence at this time that directly contradicts the witness' sworn statement. The Defense will wait for a response from the Crown and the Court's ruling before presenting it.
Submitted Respectfully,
∴ ⨿🝛
The Artist Formerly Known as ConsequencesInc
5/331/2026
Denied. Discovery has passedIN THE HONOURABLE MAGISTRATE OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CRIMINAL ACTION
Case No.: 6
ENTREATY TO INTRODUCE IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE
Your honor,
Given the Noble PhillinDeBlanc's answer to question 8 posed to him, the Defense wishes to introduce impeachment evidence at this time that directly contradicts the witness' sworn statement. The Defense will wait for a response from the Crown and the Court's ruling before presenting it.
Submitted Respectfully,
∴ ⨿🝛
The Artist Formerly Known as ConsequencesInc
5/331/2026
IN THE HONOURABLE MAGISTRATE OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CRIMINAL ACTION
Case No.: 6
FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS
Apologies to the court, I do have some follow up questions.
@Capt11543
9. You previously mentioned in your answer to Question 4 that you remember typing "some chat messages" to the Defendant. How did the conversation continue after you asked him if he knew how you managed to destroy the block?
@PhillinDeBlanc
Before I ask these questions, I wish to state the following for the court:
The incident in question of this trial occurred on April 8th, 2026, which was 67 days ago as of this posting. Under the Statute of Limitations Act, no party can start the pursuit of a summary or indictable criminal offense, or a civil action for something that happened more than 60 days ago. See §4-5 A.P. 01-007. This means that there is currently no threat of the witnesses 5th rights being violated.
Therefore, I will ask the Noble Peace Officer once again, while under oath:
16. Is it your testimony here today that you did not notify and identify to the Defendant that you were a police officer before you cuffed him?
17. Did you ever notify and identify yourself as a police officer to the Defendant between the time that you cuffed him and when he escaped from your hand cuffs?
