Case: Pending Azalea Isles v. Kli Astonmartin (2025) CR 07

[fauzfauzfauz]

Ministry of Justice, Prosecution
v.
Kli_20, Defendant

Criminal Complaint: This case is being brought to the Court to charge the Defendant with Bank Robbery and Trespassing. On August 17th, the Defendant was seen inside of the bank vault, with the vault doors broken into.

Parties:
1. Prosecution, Fauz Wolfe & Hanuta Brehmer/Ministry of Justice
2. Defendant, Kli Astonmartin

Factual Allegations:
1. The Defendant was seen inside of the bank vault on or around August 17th.
2. The bank vault doors were open, which is indicative of a break-in.

Legal Claims:
1. The Defendant engaged in Bank Robbery, which is defined as “the taking of money, securities, or other valuables from a bank or financial institution” in section 3 of the Criminal Code.
2. The Defendant engaged in Trespassing, which is defined as “the unlawful and unintentional entry onto the property of a person, legal entity, or government entity” in section 3 of the Criminal Code.

Prayer for Relief:
1. The Defendant will serve 10 minutes of jail time, and will pay a fine of $500 per the Criminal Code for Bank Robbery.
2. The Defendant will serve an additional 5 minutes of jail time, and will pay another $50 per the Criminal Code for Trespassing.
3. The Defendant will pay an another $1000 in damages to the government to amount for the money stolen from the bank. The $1000 is averaged between the minimum and maximum possible amount to be robbed.

Evidence:
The Defendant’s name tag Kli Astonmartin, can be seen inside the vault, and the doors are open.


Verification:
I, Fauz Wolfe, hereby affirm that the allegations in the complaint AND all subsequent statements made in court are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief and that any falsehoods may bring the penalty of perjury.

 

[Westray]

Writ of Summons

Azalea Isles Criminal Court (CR)

Case No. CR-25-07
​

Prosecutor: Fauz Wolfe (fauzfauzfauz) and Hanuta Brehmer (RealHanuta)
Defendant: Kli Astonmartin (kli_20)

​

The Defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of Azalea Isles v. Kli Astonmartin. 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.

If you wish to hold this trial at the Azalea Courthouse in-person, please note that in your response. The Court will try to work with both parties to hold live hearings at convenient times.

​

Signed,
Hon. Chief Justice Raymond West

 

[RandomIntruder]

Answer to Criminal Complaint:

The Defendant wishes to plead Guilty on the 1x count of Trespassing.
The Defendant wishes to plead Not Guilty on the 1x count of Bank Robbery.

Legal Defenses or Challenges:

The prosecution has failed to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt that my client participated in Bank Robbery. The only provided evidence shows that he was inside of the bank, aka trespassing, but no proof of actual robbery was shown.

Furthermore, there is no proof provided of any money having been stolen nor any source provided by the $1,000 average of the robberies.

Verification:

I, Random Intruder, 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.

 

[Westray]

The Prosecution has 48 hours to provide an opening statement

 

[fauzfauzfauz]

Motion to Amend the Criminal Case File

Your Honor, due to an issue with trying to upload evidence in the original file, I am requesting to add this additional screenshot into the record. The original pictures are too large, and my attempt to downsize failed for one of them.

Here is the evidence:



Opening Statement

Your Honor, this case is simple.

This was not an accident. There are instructions on how to commit bank robbery posted multiple times outside, part of which can be seen. One of the signs instructs citizens to break the iron block to begin to rob the bank. The words “BANK ROBBERY” appear across the screen upon entry. One does not simply wander into the bank, find their way down the stairs, and bring specific tools to break through the material the vault door is made of, if they do not intend to rob it. There is no other reason to be inside the bank, let alone the guarded vault area. In addition, the vault doors can only be broken into every 5 hours, meaning one has to meticulously plan a heist.

The Defense has already pleaded guilty to Trespassing, admitting illegal, forced entry into the restricted area of the bank. They allege that there remains a "reasonable doubt" that the Defendant did not rob the bank, but the vault is not publicly accessible without forced entry, which shows clear intent to enter unauthorized. There is no reasonable justification to enter the bank, and continue to progress through it, going towards the gold blocks that can be robbed, than to engage in bank robbery, and the Defendant is photographed doing this.

Finally, I want to clarify for the Defense and Your Honor that the Wiki states the amount to be stolen from the bank is a range of between $440 and $1760. Technically, the medium is $1100, but the Prosecution is praying for $1000 in government restitution.

Here is the Wiki link verifying the above information. I will also include a screenshot with the fact.
https://cityrp.wiki.gg/wiki/Crime#Robberies_and_Heists

Please let me know if the attached pictures failed to load. There should be two.

 

[Westray]

Given we are at an early point in the trial, the motion to amend is accepted.

The Defendant has 48 hours to provide an opening statement.

 

[RandomIntruder]

OPENING STATEMENT

The government has once again doubled down on both the assumption of my client’s intention and success without proof of wrongdoing.

They have failed to prove that my client was breaking the blocks inside the bank. They have failed to prove that my client “[took] money, securities, or other valuables from a bank or financial institution.” They have failed to prove any money was made at all from breaking blocks in the bank, much less the $1,000 they took.

The prosecution states “There is no reasonable justification to enter the bank, and continue to progress through it, going towards the gold blocks that can be robbed, than to engage in bank robbery, and the Defendant is photographed doing this,” once again accusing my client of something they have no evidence of doing. There was no evidence that my client progressed through the bank, not even any evidence that there were gold blocks in the bank at that time, nor that anything has been taken. There is no “attempted bank robbery” crime, only successful bank robbery can be prosecuted, of which the prosecution consistently fails to prove.

The whole of the prosecution's case rests on an assumption of one crime because of another,
trespassing in the bank must equal bank robbery happening. However, there’s a reason why these are two different crimes: they are not equivalent in intention or effect. To use the proof of one as evidence of another would set horrible legal precedent for the burden of proof required for criminal cases.

Lastly, to once again argue on the average for the bank robbery, the math done in the evidence provided assumes that all 22 blocks of gold were broken, which there was no evidence of having been done by my client. To ask for recompensation for a crime on top of a punishment when the success of the crime or even whether it occurred at all is not proven would be preposterous.

 

[Westray]

Thank you both for your opening arguments. Each party has 48 hours to indicate if they wish to call any witnesses.

@fauzfauzfauz @RandomIntruder