Hello, Guest

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.
By:
Advanced search…
What's new

Azalea Isles v. Krix (2024) CR 01

The Royal Colony of the Azalea Isles, Plaintiff.
v.
Krix, Defendant.

Criminal Complaint:
Krix is formally being accused by the plaintiff, The Royal Colony of the Azalea Isles, of committing the following crimes: 12 counts of 1.5 Robbery; 1 counts of 1.1 Murder; and shall henceforth be known as the defendant.
The defendant(s), in their conduct, have committed offenses against the government and its people. As such, the prosecuting authority, lead by Matthew Romanus, under the direction of her majesty, is asking for a resolution under the criminal code.

Parties:
1. Plaintiff: The Royal Colony of the Azalea Isles, lead by prosecutor Matthew Romanus.
2. Defendant: Krix.

Factual Allegations:
1. The defendant, whom at all points in this complaint, is a citizen of the Royal Colonies.
2. At some point, the defendant had killed a single person. The victim is unknown.
3. At some point, the defendant had robbed multiple people. The victims are unknown.
4. The defendant knowingly took money from people.
5. The Criminal Code stipulates this action to be illegal under 1.5 Robbery: It shall be illegal to take, steal, or come into adverse possession of any item, monies, material, papers, property, or any other real or intangible object from any person, legal entity, organization, or the government; excluding Azalea Isle’s bank.
6. The Criminal code stipulates this action to be illegal under 1.1 Murder: It shall be illegal to kill another person.

Legal Claims:
Krix, whom is the defendant, in violation of the Criminal Code, committed 1.5 Robbery because they took, stole, or came into adverse possession of any item, monies, material, papers, property, or any other real or intangible object 12 times against unknown victims.
Krix, whom is the defendant, in violation of the Criminal Code, committed 1.1 Murder because they killed 1 time against an unknown victim.

Prayer for Relief:
The Commonwealth is asking that the defendant, for committing the crimes: 12 counts of 1.5 Robbery; 1 counts of 1.1 Murder. The prosecution requests that the defendant, in accordance with the criminal code, be jailed for 725 minutes (or whatever cap given) and be fined for $50 dollars.

Verification:
I, Matthew Romanus, hereby affirm that the allegations in this amended complaint AND all subsequent statements made in court are true and correct to the best of the plaintiff's knowledge, information, and belief and that any falsehoods may bring the penalty of perjury.
 
Opening Argument:

Your honor,

We come today posing legal questions of grave importance in this case. That being the interpretation of 4.1; 4.1(a); and 4.1(b) of the Criminal Code.

This is the section in question:

1. In any instance where a crime could give a punishment of a fine that could exceed $1,000 dollars or give 30 minutes or more of jail, a prosecutor must head the case.
  • a. Police may still detain someone for an alleged crime under this category, however, that person must be prosecuted within the statute of limitations.
  • b. In any instance where an alleged crimes’ punishment is less than the amount described in 4.1, Police may apply the punishment without a trial.
Under normal circumstances, the AIPD would have exercised its authority by applying 4.1(b) to arrest the defendant without trial. Notwithstanding the defendant’s right of appeal in such a case, the problem at hand is not that the defendant did not do the crime, but whether or not 4.1 “In any instance”, applies when multiple charges need to be addressed concurrently. The police arrested the defendant for 12 counts of Robbery and 1 count of murder and detained the defendant to protect the public from further crime, as such is our charge under her royal majesty.

The prosecution would like to submit into evidence the following police logs:
https://imgur.com/a/HA9RsTI

As demonstrated by the defendant's rapid accumulation of charges, our crime watchers system continued to report new offenses even after the case was initiated. The prosecution does not seek to apply the additional two robbery charges and one murder charge, as we consider this situation adequately addressed through this prosecution.

Under the law, however, the police were compelled to launch a prosecution due to the cumulative punishment for all the charges exceeding the allowable limit under section 4.1(b) for arrest without trial. Instead, the AIPD gathered evidence and initiated proceedings to detain the defendant under section 4.1(a), which allows for detention to protect the public from further harm.

The question logically becomes as follows, does “In any instance” apply here? The police in this case cautiously felt that it did as to honor her majesty’s law. However, could the police have arrested the Defendant for each individual charge? Applying “each instance” as “any instance” instead of concurrently and punishing the defendant in accordance with 4.1(b)? These are the questions that we bring before you today, Honorable Milkcrack .

Response to Answer:

1) The Defence REFUTES the following: The defendant, whom at all points in this complaint, is a citizen of the Royal Colonies. - Krix considers himself to be a 'Sovereign Citizen' and a native to Azalea Isles, he refuses the idea that he is a citizen under the authority of the Crown. He is waiving his right under the 'Mandate for the Isles' to '1. The right to citizenship upon entering the country.', however as one of the 'people of Azalea Isles' he is still entitled to be protected by the rest of the rights. Krix is waiving his right to citizenship just as one can waive their right to not self-incriminate.
The defendant is a citizen of the Royal Colonies the moment he first flew into the Royal Colonies. He is therefore a citizen.

2) The Defence REFUTES the following: At some point, the defendant had robbed multiple people. - The Prosecution provides no evidence to prove that multiple persons were robbed, they just post a screenshot that Krix is wanted for 12 counts of robbery, if these robberies did occur (Which for all we know they did not) there is not reason to believe that more than one person was robbed.
The plaintiff provided evidence of our crime watchers system, which is used to track criminals and inform police of when a crime occurred. This system, while not giving complete details on who was robbed and for what amount, does provide police with information on whether a person committed a crime.

3) The Defence REFUTES the following: The defendant knowingly took money from people. - The Prosecution provides no evidence to support this in anyway, there is no evidence to prove the fact that money was taken. There is only a screenshot which states that Krix is "Wanted for: murder (1x), robbery (12x)", furthermore the Prosecution provides no evidence of motive, knowledge of events, or comprehension that Krix was aware of these actions.
As stated before, our crime watchers system informs us of who did a crime. We know a crime was committed and therefore action had to be taken.

4) The Defence REFUTES the following: The Criminal Code stipulates this action to be illegal under 1.5 Robbery: It shall be illegal to take, steal, or come into adverse possession of any item, monies, material, papers, property, or any other real or intangible object from any person, legal entity, organization, or the government; excluding Azalea Isle’s bank. - The Prosecution has not proved that the actions taken amount to this charge.
As stated before, our crime watchers system informs us of who did what crime. Because we know someone was mugged, we know that the defendant had taken, stolen, or come into adverse possession of money.

Response to Motion to Strike:
Our crime watchers system isn’t perfect, however, it records crimes as they happen. The defendant is free to submit evidence proving that the murder was in self-defense and we’ll ask that this charge be dropped from the prosecution.

Verification:
I, Matthew Romanus, hereby affirm that the allegations in the complaint AND all subsequent statements made in court are true and correct to the best of the plaintiff's knowledge, information, and belief and that any falsehoods may bring the penalty of perjury.
 
Motion to Strike:
Your honor this is a disgrace,

The prosecution states "The defendant is free to submit evidence proving that the murder was in self-defense and we’ll ask that this charge be dropped from the prosecution.". While previously stating, in their resubmission, "At some point, the defendant had killed a single person. The victim is unknown.", this create an impossibility for my client who is being asked by the Prosecution to provide the evidence for them that their "crime watchers system" fails to gather. Their failures, and complete reliance, on an automated system should not disadvantage my client and result in him being dragged through the streets and thrown in jail for 14 hours, as they are asking. Once again I ask the court to strike all mentions of "murder" from this case. If it wasn't tracked, you must redact.

Motion to Suppress Evidence:
Your honor,

The Prosecution has proven beyond doubt the failures in their "crime watchers system", not only does it fail to provide any accurate information regarding the alleged murders, but also by the omission of facts by Prosecution in their opening statement it does not inform them how much, if any, money was taken in any alleged robbery. The crime of robbery is "It shall be illegal to take, steal, or come into adverse possession of any item, monies, material, papers, property, or any other real or intangible object from any person, legal entity, organization, or the government; excluding Azalea Isle’s bank." this does not make it a crime to use the '/rob' command - if that is what they allege my client has done. Their system doesn't track the information, and if it wasn't tracked, you must redact your honor.

The Defence asks that due to its inaccuracies, ineffectiveness, and inability to track data that all "evidence" gathered from this "crime watchers system" is not allowed within this court. If it wasn't tracked, you must redact.

Motion to Dismiss:
Your honor,

The Prosecution has put my client through hell this last week with this trial. It can be clear to anyone that this case has no factual basis your honor, the prosecution has failed completely to gather the evidence they need and instead have pursued a vendetta against my client simply for who he is. They rushed into this Prosecution without there being any evidence of a crime actually being committed because they wanted to be able to throw my client in jail - exactly what we, the defence, warned about happening in our previous motion. Your honor we ask that this case be dismissed now so my client can go back to his normal life without this looming over him.
 
As all motions go to the crime-watcher system directly, I will handle the motion to suppress evidence first and go from there.

So could the prosecution please, provide their answer to the motion to suppress evidence and include the answer to the following questions:
  • What information does the crime-watcher system give about murder and robbery crimes?
  • Can the crime-watcher system give a robbery alert if no money was taken out of someone's account?
  • Does the prosecution have any other evidence to support the charges other than the crime-watcher system?
 
1. The crime-watcher system alerts police from an anonymous source that they were murdered or robbed and who did that action. The source remains anonymous, we do not know who made the report. We also do not know how much money was stolen.
2. No. The report can only generate from an anonymous source if an action was taken against them that would allow them to make that report.
3. No. The prosecution is relying on the evidence of the crime-watchers system. This is the basis of all police work. Under normal circumstances, under the authority 4.1(b), the AIPD would act on the reports generated by the crime-watchers system alone to arrest for murder and robbery.
 
Objection on the grounds of Perjury your honor,

I have been informed that the "crime watchers system" would indeed provide a robbery alert even if no money was taken as a result of '/rob' being ran, so for example if the victim had no money in their account.
 
Unregistered Member said:
Objection on the grounds of Perjury your honor,

I have been informed that the "crime watchers system" would indeed provide a robbery alert even if no money was taken as a result of '/rob' being ran, so for example if the victim had no money in their account.
Click to expand...
Does the defence have a witness or evidence in support of this claim?
 
Motion for Sanctions:
1. The defendant’s counsel has repeatedly refused to follow instructions given by the court. When asked to give an answer, he tried to dismiss the case and refused to give an answer before being requested again to do so.
2. Defendant’s counsel misunderstands the law. Defendant’s counsel posts superfluous motions without answer and abuses judicial economy. Defendant’s counsel does not understand what a criminal case is and requested for civil trial, showing a lack of knowledge in the criminal code. Additionally, he is arguing before the court that his client is not a citizen in direct contravention of the Mandate for the Isles, advancing a ridiculous theory that counsel is asserting as true under threat of perjury.
3. Defendant’s counsel misunderstands the facts. The defendant's counsel is refusing to acknowledge legal evidence from our crime watcher’s system. This system is put in place by our majesty to keep the safety of her people. Defendant’s counsel seeks to upend this system in such a manner that it could not be used again to protect the public. By refusing to engage with reality or the facts, the defendant's counsel is attempting to destroy the colony’s public safety for the gain of his client.
4. By pushing all of the above, the defendant’s counsel is harming the defendant’s legal interest. The prosecution requests an admonishment and an injunction ordering the defendant to stick with reality or an injunction ordering a substitution of counsel allowing the defendant to seek a new lawyer.

Motion for Perjury:
1. Perjury shall be defined as “It shall be illegal to tell any lie before any government entity.”
2. Defendant’s counsel attempted to assert that this was a civil trial while fully knowing it was a criminal trial, purposely lying to attempt to get the case thrown.
3. Defendant’s counsel asserts that the defendant is not a citizen. This is clearly a lie as the Mandate for the Isles specifically states that they have “The right to citizenship upon entering the country.” This right cannot be denied by the defendant and their lawyer knows this.
4. Defendant’s counsel is lying about evidence given regarding the defendant’s crimes. We informed him that his client is wanted for 12 robberies and a murder. The evidence is given directly to the defendant’s counsel to review. Defendant’s counsel puts on record “if these robberies did occur (Which for all we know they did not) there is not reason to believe that more than one person was robbed” which is completely untrue. Our system tracks if a crime has been reported by an anonymous source. The anonymous source can only report if they had the ability to do so because a crime had been committed against them and chose to do so. The defendant would not be facing the charges if he did not commit 12 counts of robbery.
 
Your honor, if I may ask to address the court directly on these motions for sanctions as they are a direct response from the prosecution to our allegations of perjury against the Prosecutor, it is simply an attempt to use the court to intimidate the Defence as to save their own skin.

Conversation outside of court where the prosecutor attempted to intimidate myself into dropping the Motion for Perjury:

327d3413bc53bca9fdd47a3a5078179c.png


For the sake of my own reputation I ask the court that I be allowed to fully and complete refute the ridiculous allegations made by the Prosecutor.
 
The Prosecution is a fucking liar your honour and I am happy with legal counsel.
 
MilkCrack said:
Does the defence have a witness or evidence in support of this claim?
Click to expand...
I have been informed that it is the case by my client as this is what has happened to him, I would be happy to arrange for a demonstration for the court - however I would be arrested by the MoJ for doing so.
 
ORDER ON MOTION FOR SANCTION

Although I agree with the prosecution that an objection on the grounds of perjury is an aggressive choice and make no mistake, should this claim be found capricious, the defence will face admonishment from this court and possible sanctions but I will wait to hear the evidence before doing so.

As to the other points, the defence has the legal right, and duty, to question the evidence presented by the prosecution. This is not a reason for sanctions.

Their misfiled civil complaint was a response to the prosecution's own mislabeled complaint, thus any fault lies primarily with the prosecution, not the defence. Apart from this, I do not see any instance the defence has failed to follow any orders of the court. So I will be denying this ground for sanctions

Furthermore, it is presumed that all individuals residing on the Azalea Isles are citizens. Despite the defence's assertion of their independence, they have not formally, willfully and knowingly waived their right to citizenship. Therefore, their rights, as stipulated in the mandate for the Isles, remain protected. These rights include the right to assistance of counsel and the choice thereof. Consequently, I will place a high burden on disqualifying an attorney to represent people in a court of law.

As such, I will be dismissing the above points and waiting for the evidence on the perjury objection before continuing.

Now for the defence, I expect concrete evidence to substantiate the claims of perjury as I will not tolerate capricious motions for the purposes of rhetorics. Please clarify how you can prove that the crime-watcher system still issues an alert even if no amount of money is stolen.

Furthermore, this court is appalled, by the ad hominem attacks and the dramatization of this case both in and out of this courtroom. If this continues I will be issuing a gag order and possible sanctions. All parties are to adhere strictly to the facts, the law and the rules of decorum.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
 
As I have previously stated your honor, I am happy to arrange for a demonstration - however doing so will lead to arrest by the MoJ. Perhaps a court order from yourself to allow this demonstration to take place?
 
Would the prosecution object to co-operate in such a demonstration?
 
They can do the test without issue and release a video. We will also do the same to test.

Just as a set aside. If there is an issue with the plugin regarding 0 balance and reporting a robbery where nothing was stolen, the police nor I would have a reason to know since its not our business to commit crime. Its our job to stop crime, not start it.

Update:
I tested it and recorded a video. You can indeed rob someone for $0.00 dollars and be reported for a robbery by our crime-watchers system, which would inherently be a false report by our system since nothing was stolen.
 
Motion for Sanctions:
In presenting this perjury to the court, wherein the Prosecution stated "No" to the question "Can the crime-watcher system give a robbery alert if no money was taken out of someone's account?" - which is not true and a false statement. It has been verified by the MoJ that the system can indeed give a false positive. In presenting this the Prosecution decided to threaten the defense, and when we would not acquiesce to their threats they made the ridiculous 'Motion for Sanctions' & a 'Motion of Perjury' of their own - as a sort of tit for tat, a quid pro quo.

"I'm going to ask once" and "You will have to deal with consequence if you do not", the Prosecution intended to wield a malicious 'Motion for Sanctions' & a 'Motion of Perjury' for the purposes of intimidating me into not raising that they lied about the crime watchers system - facts which their entire case relied upon. I was merely doing my job of representing my client to the best of my ability, and even then I was treated as if I was making up that the crime watchers system was a failure - being warned against "capricious motions for the purposes of rhetorics".

Your honor the Prosecutions motions were capricious, as you rightly pointed out yourself you cannot sanction a lawyer for representing their client. It was a grasp at the straws attempt to follow up on a threat to save their own skin. Your honor the Prosecution is flailing, we ask that you sanction them for their behavior in this matter and at least an apology from them.
 
To the Honorable MilkCrack,

Motion to Sanction Defendant’s Counsel:
The Plaintiff, respectfully submits this Motion to Sanction Defendant’s Counsel for Abuse of Process, pursuant to the Court’s inherent authority to regulate the conduct of its proceedings.

Grounds for Motion:
Defendant’s Counsel has engaged in a pattern of abusive and dilatory tactics throughout these proceedings, including but not limited to:

Excessive filing of frivolous motions: Defendant’s Counsel has repeatedly filed motions for perjury against Plaintiff’s counsel, despite the lack of any credible evidence to support such allegations. These motions are nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to harass and intimidate opposing counsel.

Abuse of motions for sanction: Defendant’s Counsel has also filed a motion for sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel, in a blatant attempt to divert attention from their own misconduct and to intimidate Plaintiff’s counsel into abandoning their claims.

Disrespect towards the Prosecution: Throughout these proceedings, the Defendant’s Counsel has consistently demonstrated a lack of professionalism and respect towards the Prosecution. Their actions have been replete with discourtesy, sarcasm, and an utter disregard for the legal process.

Argument:
The excessive filing of frivolous motions and abuse of motions for sanctions constitutes a clear abuse of process. Such tactics are designed to harass, intimidate, and waste the time and resources of opposing counsel, as well as the Court’s valuable time and resources.

Defendant’s Counsel’s actions demonstrate a blatant disregard for the integrity of these proceedings and the dignity of this Court. Their disrespect towards the prosecution is a clear indication of their willingness to undermine the legitimacy of these proceedings. Such behavior is unacceptable and warrants sanction.

Relief Requested:
Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court:
  • Sanction Defendant’s Counsel: Impose sanctions against Defendant’s Counsel in an amount sufficient to deter future abuse of process;
  • Compel Defendant’s Counsel to comply with the rules of procedure: Order Defendant’s Counsel to refrain from filing further frivolous motions or engaging in abusive tactics.

Respectfully submitted,

Matthew Romanus Prosecutor for The Royal Colony of the Azalea Isles
 
On the admissibility of the crime-watcher system
Based on the principles of general jurisprudence, a crime is comprised of two essential elements: mens rea and actus reus. Mens rea refers to the guilty mind, while actus reus refers to the guilty act.

After thoroughly considering the information presented by both parties, I find that the Crime-Watcher system is admissible as evidence. However, since, by the state's admission, the Crime-Watcher system can issue an alert without necessarily leading to the withdrawal of money from an individual's account, the alert does not fulfil the complete definition of the charge of robbery on its own

"It shall be illegal to take, steal, or come into adverse possession of any item, monies, material, papers, property, or any other real or intangible object from any person, legal entity, organization, or the government; excluding Azalea Isle’s bank."

Consequently, while the Crime-Watcher system can be utilized to establish the mens rea (guilty mind) element of the robbery charge, it is insufficient to substantiate the actus reus (guilty act) required for a conviction of robbery.

If the state seeks to penalize the use of the /rob command on its own, it should either criminalize the act of using this command or provide for attempted robbery or other inchoate crimes.

On the motions for sanctions:
Given that this is among the initial trials, I will extend a degree of leniency, particularly in the absence of clear guidelines on the format and substance of motions.

The prosecution's motion for sanctions is denied. Having already issued a warning to both parties, I will not impose sanctions for prior behaviour that has already been addressed.

Regarding the defence's motion, I do not find sufficient evidence indicating that the prosecution's actions were intended to knowingly deprive the defence of any legal rights and as such also dismiss this motion.

In the future, please do not claim the opposing council is committing perjury when you cannot provide evidence that the opposing council is intentionally committing deception.

When the opposing council is giving incorrect information presented as fact, a motion to strike a statement or an objection based on factually incorrect information is generally preferred.

Statutory Interpretation of the Criminal Code
As for the issues raised earlier, the necessity of taking these crimes to court, I rule as follows:

The criminal code states: "1. In any instance where a crime could result in a punishment of a fine exceeding $1,000 or a jail term of 30 minutes or more, a prosecutor must head the case."

Thus, any crime with a maximum punishment exceeding 30 minutes in jail or a fine over $1,000 must be taken to court. Since the judge is responsible for sentencing and may deviate from the maximum requested by the prosecution, it is irrelevant whether the state's requested sentence is below these thresholds. Additionally, the combined punishment for multiple petty crimes is not relevant; the punishment is considered for each crime separately.

So based on the interpretation of the criminal code, the robbery charges are required to be taken to court, whilst the murder charges is not as the maximum punishment for murder does not exceed the thresholds.

Motion to dismiss
Before ruling on the motion to dismiss, I would like to ask the state one final time whether they have any other evidence of the alleged robberies, other than the crime-watcher system.

If not the robberie charges will be dismissed, and only the murder charge shall remain.
 
Motion of Recusal
It is with a heavy heart that the Defence submits this motion. We request that Justice MilkCrack recuse himself from this trial as he has acted in a bias manor in favor of the Prosecution, we are unaware if this is due to malice or a predisposition towards my client or just a failure to keep this court in order, as we will outline the evidence for such below:

1. The first case of bias in favor of the Prosecution was at the start of this trial, the Prosecution initially filed this case as a civil trial. Instead of dismissing the trial and allowing them to refile it correctly the Justice instead smoothed over their mistake and even corrected their mistakes for them.
2. The Justice then further allowed the Prosecution to double down on their mistake and submit a criminal complaint onto their already misfiled civil complaint within the one case.
3. The Justice automatically filed this case, naming it 'CR 01', as a criminal trial despite the fact that the Prosecution had filed it as a civil case - further correcting the Prosecutions negligence, possibly in order to allow their case to find my client guilty whatever the cost may be.
4. The Justice only chose to correct the mistake of the Prosecution, in filing the case as a civil trial and not as a criminal one, once the Defence had followed in referring to the case as a civil trial. Clearly showing that they had noticed the mistake of the Prosecution but, potentially, had hoped to be able to ignore it.
5. When considering the question of the ability of the MoJ to detain the Defendant the Justice only quoted, and clearly only considered, Section 4.1 & Section 4.1a of the criminal code - despite the fact that Section 4.1b had been previously mentioned by the Defence. This clause would have made the actions of the AIPD illegal, however the Justice completely ignored it.
6. The Justice once again allowed the Prosecution leniency in fixing their mistake by allowing them to amend their original filing to include the factual allegations of Murder, instead of just dismissing the charges immediately and making them refile the case, asking the Prosecution to "Please also include as many details as possible" - details they would not end up providing, with the Justice ignoring the exclusion of detail.
7. The Justice showed a very clear bias against the Defence in writing a warning directed to the Defence regarding their 'Motion of Perjury' due to the lie told by the Prosecution of "No" to the question "Can the crime-watcher system give a robbery alert if no money was taken out of someone's account?" - this is an obvious lie given that the system obviously has faults as highlighted by the Defence. On submitting this fact the Justice treated the Defence as if they were lying, warning them against "capricious motions for the purposes of rhetorics" - prejudging the statement made to be false, without any evidence.
8. In response to the Defence motioning for perjury the Prosecution proceeded to threaten and then file frivolous and frankly insane motions. Asking for sanctions against the Defence for acts such as: "refusing to acknowledge legal evidence from our crime watcher’s system" - Which the Defence proved could make mistakes, "Defendant’s counsel does not understand what a criminal case is and requested for civil trial, showing a lack of knowledge in the criminal code" - attempting to blame his own mistake for filing the case as a civil trial on the Defence, and finally in that motion "the defendant’s counsel is harming the defendant’s legal interest" attempting the most disgusting act of directly attacking the opposing counsel as failing their client, when the only thing so far that had protected our client was the hard work of the opposing counsel. This completely unhinged, illegal, and crazed attack on the Defence was not even met with warning from the Justice - with the Justice instead choosing in their response to warn the Defence as mentioned in point 7.
9. The Prosecution clearly threated the Defence, however when this was submitted to the court the Justice chose to completely ignore this and instead warn both sides against "ad hominem attacks and the dramatization of this case", there was a clear abuse of power where threats were made not against the defendant in the case but the lawyer of the defendant, in an attempt to deprive the Defendant of their right to counsel - however this was glossed over and ignored by the Justice.
10. The Justice, despite warning that capricious Motions of Perjury would be punished in their court, chose to ignore the fact that the Prosecution had made a Motion of Perjury against the Defence for "Defendant’s counsel attempted to assert that this was a civil trial while fully knowing it was a criminal trial, purposely lying to attempt to get the case thrown." despite acknowledging multiple times that this was a mistake made by the Prosecution. In fact the very act of making this Motion of Perjury was in fact Perjury by the Prosecution - as the Prosecution knew the mistake in filing it as a civil trial started with them, however the Justice rushed past these facts further forgiving the Prosecution their mistakes.
11. The Justice has allowed the Prosecution to spend further time scraping up the evidence they should have gathered two weeks ago, at this point my client has spent nearly 2 hours in jail, 2 weeks in court. The Prosecution has been given every single chance to correct their mistakes - but when the Justices thinks that the Defence has made a mistake he choses to deliver a cold hard warning, despite the fact that the Defence was in the right. This is not a court of justice, this should have been ruled a mistrial two weeks ago - the fact this case continues is a truly terrible thing.
 
Your honor,

Thank you for the extension necessary to complete the analysis and synthetization of the influx of evidence we received. To begin with, please see the following imgur links:

https://imgur.com/a/Rbgqlon
- This is the list of people that Krix killed on the date of the prosecution. It is important to note that not every person slain results in a murder charge. Your only charge with murder by our crime-watchers system if the person you killed use /911 on you. Whereas our crime-watchers system will automatically charge you with robbery if /rob is used on someone.

https://imgur.com/a/5HOrDzf
- We have witnesses confirming that they were robbed by Krix on that date. These witnesses were identified after the screenshots in #global-chat were received.

https://imgur.com/a/EB9DvdJ
- This is the screenshot of /baltop taken on the date of 5/31/2024. This is to investigate who was likely to have a $0 dollar balance on the date of the crime (and therefore if robbed, the robber would have gotten nothing and not been guilty of robbery).

The screenshots reveal that the following people had a chance of being robbed out of 14 attempts:
  • 5 chances it was Dusty who was robbed.
  • 6 chances it was xBlu3 who was robbed.
  • 2 chances it was WaffleSlime who was robbed.
  • 2 chances it was GuardianCycle who was robbed.
  • 2 chance it was Ansgardd who was robbed.
  • 1 chance it was Donut who was robbed.
  • 1 chance it was Reppal who was robbed.
The Prosecution is only requesting for 12 charges of robbery. However, Krix did commit 14 attempts at robbery as seen in the screenshots given in the opening arguments (see
https://imgur.com/a/HA9RsTI
).

As such, we would like to submit the following statistical analysis:

Total chances of being robbed: 19
Chances of having a $0 balance: 8
Number of charges of robbery: 12

Probability Analysis:
  • Probability of a robbery involving a $0 balance player: 8/19
  • Probability of a robbery involving a player with a non-zero balance: 11/19
Since we have 8 chances of a $0 balance and 12 charges of robbery, we must check if it is statistically feasible for all 12 robberies to involve the 8 $0 balance chances.

Logical Constraints:
Maximum Robberies Involving $0 Balance:
  • Only 8 players can have a $0 balance.
  • Therefore, the maximum number of robberies involving players with a $0 balance cannot exceed 8.
Conclusion:
  • Given there are only 8 chances for a player to have a $0 balance, it is impossible for all 12 charges of robbery to involve only players with a $0 balance. At most, only 8 of the 12 charges can involve $0 balance players.
Implications:
  • Out of the 12 charges, at least 4 must involve players with a non-zero balance, as there are insufficient $0 balance opportunities to account for all 12 charges.
Argument Summary:
  • Factual Constraint: Only 8 of the 12 robberies can statistically involve players with a $0 balance.
  • Logical Outcome: At least 4 charges of robbery must involve players with a non-zero balance.
  • This is due to the limited number of $0 balance chances (8), making it impossible for all 12 robberies to be attributed to $0 balance players.
In conclusion, it is statistically impossible for all 12 charges of robbery to be filled solely by players with a $0 balance given the constraint of only 8 $0 balance chances.

For Witnesses, we would like to call the following witnesses:
  • xBlu3 (Victim)
  • Ansgardd (Victim)
  • RandomIntruder (Expert Witness to speak on probabilities)
  • SimplyMadi (Witness for victim xBlu3)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top