- Joined
- Nov 13, 2025
- Messages
- 446
- Thread Author
- #21
Your Honour,
Section 2(d) of the Upstanding MPs Act clearly states that "For a crime to be countable for sanctions under this Act, the perpetrator must have admitted to the deed or been found guilty by the Judiciary." That provision is unambiguous: only a real admission or a judicial finding of guilt may trigger sanctions under the Act.
Exhibit D-001 does not satisfy that requirement. The statement, "I just wanted to try out the bank robbery feature," is not an unequivocal admission of criminal conduct. It is an expressive, non-factual remark made during a stressful moment and should be read as a joke or an offhand comment, not as an admission that the Plaintiff intended or committed the crime. There is no independent evidence showing planning, tools, or other conduct that would corroborate it as a confession.
To treat this brief remark as the statutory "admission" would improperly convert protected speech into proof of guilt. Article 1's protection for freedom of thought, belief and political opinion covers remarks like this; the State must produce clear, corroborating evidence before using casual or joking speech as the basis for sanctions. No such corroboration exists here.
The Court should therefore find that Exhibit D‑001 does not constitute an admission under Section 2(d) and should be excluded as the predicate for sanctions, or, at minimum, be held legally insufficient to trigger sanctions under the Act.
Section 2(d) of the Upstanding MPs Act clearly states that "For a crime to be countable for sanctions under this Act, the perpetrator must have admitted to the deed or been found guilty by the Judiciary." That provision is unambiguous: only a real admission or a judicial finding of guilt may trigger sanctions under the Act.
Exhibit D-001 does not satisfy that requirement. The statement, "I just wanted to try out the bank robbery feature," is not an unequivocal admission of criminal conduct. It is an expressive, non-factual remark made during a stressful moment and should be read as a joke or an offhand comment, not as an admission that the Plaintiff intended or committed the crime. There is no independent evidence showing planning, tools, or other conduct that would corroborate it as a confession.
To treat this brief remark as the statutory "admission" would improperly convert protected speech into proof of guilt. Article 1's protection for freedom of thought, belief and political opinion covers remarks like this; the State must produce clear, corroborating evidence before using casual or joking speech as the basis for sanctions. No such corroboration exists here.
The Court should therefore find that Exhibit D‑001 does not constitute an admission under Section 2(d) and should be excluded as the predicate for sanctions, or, at minimum, be held legally insufficient to trigger sanctions under the Act.
