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

Case: Pending Azalea Isles v. Luke201556 (2025) CR 02

James Carrington

James Carrington

New member
ven0msaint
ven0msaint
Joined
Jan 2, 2025
Messages
13
Azalea Isles, Prosecution

v.

Luke201556, Defendant



Criminal Complaint:

The defendant, Luke201556, is charged with Bank Robbery (1x), Murder (1x), and Resisting Arrest (1x) following an incident that occurred during a robbery attempt at a vault. The defendant engaged in the theft of gold, killed a co-conspirator, and resisted lawful arrest by leaving the game before the arrest process was completed.

Parties:
  1. Prosecution: Ministry of Justice
  2. Defendant: Luke201556
  3. Arresting Officer: Spyrolix
  4. Witness: OverlordOfPeonys

Factual Allegations:

Sequence of Events:

  • Spyrolix, Luke201556, and OverlordOfPeonys were positioned invisibly in the hallway outside the vault.
  • OverlordOfPeonys broke the iron blocks securing the vault, entered, and began stealing gold, triggering the vault alarm.
  • Spyrolix arrested OverlordOfPeonys after the alarm was triggered.
  • Luke201556 also began stealing gold, triggering a second alarm.
  • Luke201556 shot OverlordOfPeonys twice, killing him.
  • Spyrolix took cover while Luke201556 fired at the surrounding walls.
  • When the timer expired, Luke201556 and Spyrolix were teleported to spawn.
  • At spawn, Spyrolix attempted to arrest Luke201556, who then disconnected from the game, effectively resisting arrest.
Date, Time, and Location:
January 11th, 202, timestamp: 08:05:28.
The incident occurred during an attempted bank robbery within the vault. The exact date and time of the events can be corroborated by in-game logs or video evidence provided in the linked document.


Legal Claims:

The Ministry of Justice, acting as the plaintiff, asserts that the defendant violated
  • Violation of Section 1.1 - Murder:
    The defendant unlawfully killed OverlordOfPeonys by shooting him twice.
    • Punishment: Fine of $50 and a 5-minute jail sentence.
  • 1.6 Bank Robbery
    • It shall be illegal to take any item, monies, material, papers, property, or any other real or intangible object from Azalea Isle’s bank.
      • Punishment: Fine not exceeding $1000 dollars and 15 minutes of jail per instance.
  • Violation of Section 1.7 - Resisting Arrest:
    The defendant evaded lawful arrest by leaving the game when the arrest was attempted at spawn.
    • Punishment: Fine of $50.
Prayer for Relief:

The Ministry of Justice respectfully requests the Court to grant the following relief:

  1. Monetary Fines:
    • $50 for the murder of OverlordOfPeonys.
    • A fine up to $1000 for the robbery of Azalea Isle’s bank.
    • $50 for resisting arrest.
  2. Incarceration:
    • A 5-minute jail sentence for the murder of OverlordOfPeonys.
    • A 15-minute jail sentence for the robbery of Azalea Isle’s bank.
  3. Ineligibility for Public Office:
    • That the defendant, Luke201556, be required to resign from Parliament and be barred from running in the next election to preserve the integrity of public office.
  4. Additional Remedies:
    • Any further relief deemed just and necessary by the Court to ensure accountability and deter future violations of the law.
The Ministry of Justice submits this case to the Court in pursuit of justice and to uphold the rule of law within the community.


Verification:

I, James Carrington, 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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Writ of Summons

Azalea Isles Criminal Court (CR)

Case No. CR-25-02

Prosecutor: James Carrington (ven0msaint)
Defendant: Luke Thegreat (Luke201556)

The Defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of Azalea Isles v. Luke201556. Failure to respond within 48 hours may result in a default judgement.

Both parties are ask to familiarize themselves with the relevant court documents, including proper formats, as well as the laws referenced in the complaint. Ensure that you comply with any court orders.
​
Signed,
Hon. Justice Raymond West
​
 
I, Luke201556 am attending. Due to a lack of legal professions I will be required to defend this case myself using my right in Article 1.9 of the constitution.
 
Motion to Dismiss
This is due to the prosecution bringing forth the Prayer for relief to include the following:
"
  1. Ineligibility for Public Office:
    • That the defendant, Luke201556, be required to resign from Parliament and be barred from running in the next election to preserve the integrity of public office.
"

This being a clause not given as the punishments for any of the alleged laws broken see legal claims by the defendant and the Criminal Code https://www.cityrp.org/threads/criminal-code.5/.

Furthermore, this clause in the prayer of relief is as such in direct violation of the Defendant's rights. See Article 1.5 of the constitution:

"
5.The right to vote and participate in elections as specified by law.
"

This could also constitute as a violation of Article 1.10 of the constitution:

"
10.The right against government overreach of powers not specified by the constitution.
"

See constitution: https://cityrp.org/threads/constitution-of-azalea-isles.94/

Final statement of the motion:

The only reason I could surmise that the prosecution would bring forth this relief would be to try leverage their power over the defendant for political gain due to their association to a rival political party and that they are currently actively running in the same election themselves as the defendant meaning they have direct reason to block other political candidates. This being said it could be considered that the the prosecutor may be in direct breach of section 2.4 of the criminal code.
 
The Prosecution has 24 hours to respond to the motion to dismiss before the Court makes a decision on it.
 
Response to Motion to Dismiss ("MTD")

I. INTRODUCTION
The prosecution responds to the defendant's Motion to Dismiss, amends its Prayer for Relief regarding statutory punishments, and petitions the Court to exercise its constitutional discretionary powers.

II. STATUTORY PENALTIES
The prosecution amends its request for statutory penalties to conform with the Criminal Code:

  1. Per §1.6 (Bank Robbery): $1,000 fine and 15 minutes jail time per instance
  2. Per §1.1 (Murder): $50 fine and 5 minutes jail time per instance
  3. Per §1.7 (Resisting Arrest): $50 fine per instance
III. REQUEST FOR DISCRETIONARY RELIEF
While acknowledging these statutory penalties, the prosecution respectfully submits that:
  1. According to Article 3 of the Mandate, the court possess constitutional authority to "... to adjudicate “disputes within Azalea Isles, through rendering verdicts in civil and criminal trials.”
  2. The gravity of the charged offences, warrant consideration for any additional measure deemed necessary by the court.
Therefore, the prosecution request that the Court:
  1. Issue a Quo Warranto as established by the "Judiciary's: Court Orders, Powers, and Judgments," requiring the defendant to show by what authority they continue to exercise the powers and privileges of parliamentary office while facing serious criminal charges, including murder and bank robbery. This recognises this mechanism as a challenge to a person's right to hold office.
  2. Issue any appropriate relief to protect public interest.
  3. Release a declaratory judgment about the implications of this criminal acts.

IV. RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION ALLEGATIONS​

The defense's allegation of corruption under §2.4 remains without merit:
  1. The prosecution's requests are grounded in the Court's constitutional authority
  2. No evidence exists of intent to use prosecutorial position for personal gain
  3. The underlying charges are supported by evidence independent of any requested relieF.
III. CONCLUSION
WHERFORE, the prosecution respectfully request that the Court:

  1. Deny the defendant's MTD
  2. Impose penalties as established in section II
  3. Exercise its discretionary authority
  4. Grant any other relief as the Court deems just and proper
Respectfully submitted,
James Carrington
Ministry of Justice, Prosecution​
 
Last edited:
Thank you for your remarks to the Court.

After careful consideration, the Court has decided to reject the Defendant's motion to dismiss at this time.

The Defendant has alleged prosecutorial bias, claiming the Prosecution’s actions are politically motivated. The Court finds these allegations unsubstantiated at this stage due to lack of supporting evidence. However, the Defendant is invited to file a new motion with supporting evidence if credible claims of bias or misconduct arise during the trial.

As for the requests by the Prosecution, the Court has decided the following:

1. The Court accepts the amendment to its Prayer for Relief to conform with the statutory penalties outlined in the Criminal Code.
2. The Court acknowledges the Prosecution's request for discretionary relief, including the issuance of a Quo Warranto, appropriate relief, and the release of a declaratory judgement. However, the Court has decided to defer ruling on these requests until after the trial has concluded. It is important that the Defendant be afforded the opportunity to defend himself before the Court decides whether or not these measures would be in line with his constitutional rights.

The Defendant has 48 hours to provide an answer to the complaint in their opening statement.
 
May I request a reminder of which point in this case we are at, due to having to defend myself I am having to base my actions off the following case structure: https://cityrp.org/pages/case-structure/. Which I believe would put us at the point 5. where the prosecution/plaintiff be called for their opening argument? If not please let me know at which point we are at and I will respond as expected with due haste, but due to my inexperience I ask the court and your honour "bare with me". Should it be my time to respond may I ask the honourable Judge grant me additional time to construct what may be expected of me due to my inexperience leading to me needing to "learn as I go along"?
 
Luke201556 said:
May I request a reminder of which point in this case we are at, due to having to defend myself I am having to base my actions off the following case structure: https://cityrp.org/pages/case-structure/. Which I believe would put us at the point 5. where the prosecution/plaintiff be called for their opening argument? If not please let me know at which point we are at and I will respond as expected with due haste, but due to my inexperience I ask the court and your honour "bare with me". Should it be my time to respond may I ask the honourable Judge grant me additional time to construct what may be expected of me due to my inexperience leading to me needing to "learn as I go along"?
Click to expand...
We're still at step #3, you need to file a response to the Criminal Information

Answer to Criminal Information:

Summarize the answer here.



Parties:

Identify the plaintiff(s); defendant(s); co-defendant(s); and third party(ies) by name (usually copy and pasted from plaintiff’s section).

  1. Plaintiff
  2. Defendant
  3. Co-Defendant


Factual Defenses or Challenges:

Provide a concise statement of the facts giving rise to the claim, including the date, time, and location of the events in question if possible.

  1. Factual defenses or challenges go here
  2. With details as possible


Legal Defenses or Challenges:

Specify the legal claims or causes of action being asserted by the plaintiff, such as breach of contract, negligence, or fraud.

  1. Legal claims or causes of action go here
  2. With specific legal defences


Verification:

I, (INSERT NAME HERE), hereby affirm that the allegations in the answer AND all subsequent statements made in court are true and correct to the best of the defendant’s knowledge, information, and belief and that any falsehoods may bring the penalty of perjury.
 
Luke201556 said:
May I request a reminder of which point in this case we are at, due to having to defend myself I am having to base my actions off the following case structure: https://cityrp.org/pages/case-structure/. Which I believe would put us at the point 5. where the prosecution/plaintiff be called for their opening argument? If not please let me know at which point we are at and I will respond as expected with due haste, but due to my inexperience I ask the court and your honour "bare with me". Should it be my time to respond may I ask the honourable Judge grant me additional time to construct what may be expected of me due to my inexperience leading to me needing to "learn as I go along"?
Click to expand...

You are correct to reference the Case Structure, however you have not yet provided an answer to the criminal complaint. As noted in the steps: "the defendant will be notified of the complaint via the summons, they will have time to respond to the complaint with an answer."

Therefore, the Court is asking you to provide an answer to the complaint, as seen by examples in Azalea Isles v. Ocg, or Azalea Isles v. Krix. Your answer should contain whether or not you are pleading guilty to the charges against you.

If you are unsure how to address the case against you, the Court would advise that you find an attorney to represent your interests in this case. Understanding your situation and need to find counsel, I will grant you an extension. You have 72 hours from this post to provide an answer to the complaint.
 
I hereby withdraw from this case. Another representative from the Ministry of Justice will take over its handling moving forward.
 
In the Court of the Azalea Isles
MOTION OF SUBSTITION OF COUNCEL

To The Honorable Court,

The undersigned, Oliver Spy, respectfully submits this Motion for Substitution of Counsel in the above-captioned matter and states as follows:

  1. Current Representation
    The prosecution in this case is currently represented by James Carrington, who has been serving as counsel of record.
  2. Proposed Substitution
    The undersigned, Oliver Spy, seeks to be appointed as substitute counsel for the prosecution, replacing James Carrington.
  3. Reason for Substitution
    This substitution is sought to ensure effective representation in the prosecution of this case. As the newly designated prosecutor, I am prepared to diligently advance the interests of justice in this matter.
  4. Consent of the Ministry of Justice
    The Ministry of Justice has approved this substitution, and all relevant parties have been informed of this request.
WHEREFORE, the undersigned respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant this Motion for Substitution of Counsel, appointing Oliver Spy as counsel for the prosecution and relieving James Carrington of his duties in this case.

Respectfully submitted,

Oliver Spy
Prosecutor
 

Attachments

  • 1736805978606.png
    1736805978606.png
    22.9 KB · Views: 5
The Court accepts the motion to substitute counsel, as it reasonably prescribed to the Ministry of Justice.

The Defendant is reminded to please respond to the court with an answer to the complaint, including the entering of a plea, within the specified timeframe. If an extension is required, it must be requested in advance.
 
The defendant wishes a 6 hour extension on the given period to answer. I have taken the courts advice and tried to gain a lawyer to no avail and due to having had extended shifts today and yesterday I have not yet had time to properly complete my answer which I have only just managed to do at 2 am (current time). As such I wish for this short extension so that I may suitably edit the response before posting it as the accuracy of my work will have been greatly impacted without the proper editing and time to reference and add counter evidence.
 
In addition to the current extended timeframe, the court will provide another extension of 24 hours to extend understanding for the Defendant. This is in line with the standards set out by former Judge Milk Crack, urging officers of the court to prioritize real-life personal, mental, and medical well-being over the proceedings.
 
In the Court of the Azalea Isles

MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

To the Honorable Court,

Your Honor,

The Ministry of Justice respectfully submits this Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice due to significant procedural and constitutional errors made by the previous prosecutor. These include reliance on the defunct Mandate as the legal basis for the case, which has no standing under the current Constitution, and the inclusion of unconstitutional charges in the initial prayer for relief. These errors fundamentally undermine the legitimacy of the case and its compliance with the governing legal framework.

To resolve this matter, the Ministry has reached a settlement with the defendant. The terms of the settlement require the defendant to pay a fine of $500, a reduced amount reflecting the damages caused by the case’s publicity and its timing during the election period. This settlement acknowledges the procedural mishandling of the case and compensates for the undue harm caused to the defendant's reputation.

In light of these considerations, the Ministry of Justice respectfully requests that this case be dismissed with prejudice, ensuring finality and preventing further litigation.

Respectfully submitted,

Spyrolix - General Prosecutor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top