Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of CityRP.

SignUp Now!

Latest posts

Case: Adjourned Biscuit Cookie v. Azalea Isles (2026) CV 27

Ahrucrafter said:
no, the laughing was a response to DK when he mentioned that he still can be charged for other crimes so if he contests he still would go to jail either way, the "im sorry biscuit, but its my duty" was referring to the fact that i was about to frisk him for the possession of restricted items.
Click to expand...

Exhibit D-004 shows an exchange between you and then-Minister Karaca where he tells you to "Frisk his ass", to which you ask "want me to go to jail then?"

This exchange took place after you told MP Cookie "im sorry biscuit, but its my duty"

If you were already about to frisk MP Cookie:

1. Why did then-Minister Karaca have to instruct you to do it?
2. Why did you ask if he wanted you to go to the jail in response to then-Minister Karaca instructing you to frisk MP Cookie?
 
Aero said:
Exhibit D-004 shows an exchange between you and then-Minister Karaca where he tells you to "Frisk his ass", to which you ask "want me to go to jail then?"

This exchange took place after you told MP Cookie "im sorry biscuit, but its my duty"

If you were already about to frisk MP Cookie:

1. Why did then-Minister Karaca have to instruct you to do it?
2. Why did you ask if he wanted you to go to the jail in response to then-Minister Karaca instructing you to frisk MP Cookie?
Click to expand...

The 48 hours allotted for the Plaintiff's questioning of the witness has expired more than 12 hours ago.
These latest two questions are struck from the record, the witness does not have to answer them.

Cross-Examination is hereby concluded. The witness, Mr. Spezi, is dismissed.

The Plaintiff is asked to please present their Closing Statement within 48 hours, beginning now.
 
MOTION FOR EXTENSION

Your Honour, we move the Court to extend our time and allow our final two questions to be asked.
 
Aero said:
MOTION FOR EXTENSION

Your Honour, we move the Court to extend our time and allow our final two questions to be asked.
Click to expand...

  1. The Motion for Extension lacks any justification for requesting an extension, beyond the Plaintiff's convenience.
  2. The Motion for Extension was only filed after cross-examination was already closed and the witness dismissed.
  3. Plaintiff appears to have made inefficient use of time already granted, by asking questions of the witness one at a time, without obvious or stated reason, and by waiting until approximately 22.5 hours after the opening of cross-examination before starting to ask their questions.
  4. Summoning back an already dismissed witness without extraordinary reason would be an abuse of judicial power.

For these reasons, the Court respectfully denies the Motion for Extension.
The Plaintiff is asked to submit their Closing Statement within the previously stated time-frame.
 
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honour,

This case comes down to one simple question: Did the plaintiff admit to committing bank robbery, or did he just make a joke?

The law is crystal clear. The Upstanding MPs Act says that for a sanction to apply, a Member of Parliament must have either admitted to the crime or been found guilty by a court. Neither of those things has happened here.

What actually happened: On May 21st, the plaintiff made a casual comment saying, "I just wanted to try out the bank robbery feature." Your Honour, this was a lighthearted remark. He was joking in order to illicit a response from Officer Spezi. But the context matters deeply. The plaintiff opened the exchange with a laugh "haha." Then, crucially, there was nearly two minutes and a half between that laugh and his remark about trying out the bank robbery feature. This was not a punchline to a setup. This was banter developing over time, in a conversation where Officer Spezi was joking about mining ores, which he himself admitted was "meant as a joke to mess with biscuit", and saying "mwehahahahah", and where Minister Karaca was playfully saying "Take that Biskit." The plaintiff's comment emerged from that established joking context, not from any intest to confess.

The statement cannot be an "admission" under the law. An admission means taking responsibility for something. It requires a conscious acceptance of guilt or responsibility. A casual comment made to provoke a reaction in an ongoing joking exchange is the opposite of taking responsibility. The plaintiff was not saying "I committed this crime and accept the consequences." He was taking part in banter with Officer Spezi and saying things that would illicit a response. MP Cookie did not make his statement as an answer to a question. He was not being questioned at all. This was nothing more than ordinary, everyday joking that people engage in constantly.

The Defense may argue that any statement describing the act is an admission. But that reading would make the "admission" requirement meaningless. Under their logic, a joke, a hypothetical, even a lie would all count as admissions. That cannot be what Parliament intended.

A lack of a proper admission means that Minister Karaca violated the law. Minister Karaca himself participated in this banter, saying "Take that Biskit", further proof this was a lighthearted exchange, not a serious admission. He took the plaintiff's joke and reported it to Parliament as a sanctionable offense. But the statute requires more than a passing joke. It requires either a real admission, a genuine acceptance of responsibility, or a conviction from a judge.

Why does this matter? Because the plaintiff's right to serve in Parliament is at stake. A suspension, even for one week, means he cannot vote, cannot debate important issues, and cannot represent his constituents. That's serious, and it should only happen when the law clearly says it can. And this law was not met.

We ask that you rule in favour of the plaintiff and protect his right to serve.

Thank you.
 
The Defendant is asked to submit their Closing Statement within the next 48 hours.
 
Closing Statement

Your honor,

Given the context of the statement made, it is a clear admission to the crime to Daniel. Playful banter or not, it’s still an admission of guilt, still an admission of “just wanting to test the features”.

You can’t test features without doing it, and you can’t admit to testing features without admitting to doing it.

Therefore, the defense asks the court to rule in favor of the defense and allow us to sanction MP Biscuit Cookie before the term ends and justice can no longer be served.

Thank you.
 
Thank you to both parties for your Closing Statements. We now enter into recess pending court verdict.

In the meantime, the Ministry of Justice is asked to please inform the court whether the Contempt of Court sentence issued against the witness in this case on June 4th, has been executed.
Last I heard, there was some issue interfering with the execution of that order, so I would like to hear an update on the current status.
 
Yes, currently with my schedule and the witness’s schedule, there currently hasn’t been a time where we have both been online, that I was free to give the charge. At his last playtime check, he received 0 mins of playtime for the previous week. Currently with the way the plugin is designed, I am unable to assign charges when the other player is not online. The ministry will fulfill your order as soon as we can, and will provide confirmation of this when available.
 

Court Verdict​

Azalea Isles District Court, Civil Trial (CV)

Case No. CV-26-27
Biscuit Cookie v. Azalea Isles

Position of the Plaintiff:​

  1. Plaintiff alleges that MP Biscuit Cookie is being threatened by Sanction in Parliament under the Upstanding MPs Act for alleged bank robbery, despite neither a guilty verdict from the Judiciary, nor an admission.
  2. Plaintiff alleges that in doing so, the State is violating Upstanding MPs Act §2.d.
  3. Plaintiff requests a declaratory judgment in their favor, a permanent injunction blocking this sanction and litigation costs.
  4. Plaintiff argues that the disputed statement is not an unequivocal admission, claiming that it should be interpreted as a joke, lighthearted remark or offhand comment, induced by the stressful moment.
  5. Plaintiff argues that there is no other evidence corroborating the deed that was allegedly admitted to.
  6. Plaintiff argues that the disputed statement is protected from detrimental interpretation by the 1st Fundamental Protection of the constitution.
  7. Plaintiff argues that the disputed statement was a joke intended to elicit a response from the arresting officer, made without any compulsion or question in a lightheartedly joking context and was not made with any intent to confess.
  8. Plaintiff argues that an admission means taking responsibility for something, requiring conscious acceptance of guilt or responsibility.
  9. Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s logic would let untrue admissions count under the Act and Parliament cannot have intended such an outcome.

Position of the Defendant:​

  1. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff did admit to the sanctionable crime, thus meeting the requirement of Upstanding MPs Act §2.d.
  2. Defendant argues that Plaintiff was caught inside the bank, got automatically jailed for logging off, and made the alleged admission in response to these circumstances.
  3. Defendant argues that the only way Plaintiff could “try out” the bank robbery feature is by committing the crime, and therefore the disputed statement constitutes an admission through logical inference.
  4. Defendant argues that playful banter does not change the character of the disputed statement away from an admission of guilt.

Witness Testimony and Evidence:​

  1. Mr. Spezi testified that they were the officer who arrested Plaintiff inside of the bank vault and that Plaintiff logging off shortly after sent Plaintiff to prison.
  2. Mr. Spezi testified that Plaintiff said he wanted to try out the bank robbery feature shortly after being arrested.
  3. Mr. Spezi provided and authenticated evidence submitted by the parties as D-002, D-003, D-004 and P-003.
  4. Witness examination of the Defendant’s witness consisted of 4 questions from Defendant, 5 questions from the Court and 2 questions from Plaintiff.
  5. Because this case is based around interpreting a statement made by Plaintiff, who was to the best of the Court’s knowledge not an employee of the Ministry of Justice at the time, and thus did not have knowledge of any messages exchanged internally in MoJ, all internal communication in /moj will be excluded from the Court’s analysis.
  6. The Court observes the following sequence of events to have occurred, based on the evidence provided:
    1. Plaintiff pleaded with Officer Spezi against something, presumably the arrest.
    2. Officer Spezi rejected the plea with a “shut up”
    3. Plaintiff laughed with a “haha” message in chat.
    4. Plaintiff disconnected from the server, causing the CityPolice plugin to perform automatic imprisonment, confiscation and fining.
    5. 33 seconds later, Plaintiff reconnected to the server.
    6. As the apparent first action after having returned to the server, Plaintiff sent “NO” in global chat in apparent protest or complaint against something, presumably the imprisonment.
    7. Officer Spezi celebrated the successful capture in global chat, followed by sending a message to Biscuit apologizing and stating that he was just doing his duty, presumably as a follow-up to the earlier pleading exchange.
    8. Meanwhile, the Minister of Justice at the time joined in on celebrating the success of the police with a “Take that Biskit”.
    9. Next, simultaneously to Officer Spezi teleporting to jail, the Plaintiff made the disputed statement “I just wanted to try out the bank robbery feature”, seemingly as a combination of an explanation of motive and a lamentation.
  7. The Court observes that because the evidence shows that the Plaintiffs message was received only one second after the teleport confirmation, if we take typing time into account, the alleged admission cannot have been made in response to Officer Spezi appearing at jail, meaning it stemmed from the context of the previous chat messages and the imprisonment.
  8. Because any events that followed the alleged admission cannot have informed the Plaintiff’s state of mind at the time they made the alleged admission, and none of them cast direct doubt on the facial sincerity of the alleged admission, the messages contained in P-003 do not appear to be relevant for the purposes of the Court in this case.

Court Opinion:​

  1. In this verdict, the Court will only be reviewing the legal sufficiency of the alleged admission for the requirements of the Upstanding MPs Act, not whether Plaintiff is guilty of the associated charge of Bank Robbery.
  2. The Court finds insufficient justification for admissions, as used in the statute of the Upstanding MPs Act, to necessarily require a conscious acceptance of guilt or responsibility.
  3. The Court finds that subsection §2.d of the Upstanding MPs Act (“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.”), when applying the anti-surplusage canon, creates two distinct pathways by which a crime may be considered countable for sanctions.
  4. The Court finds that the Upstanding MPs Act does not place any additional restrictions on the form or manner of the admission, beyond the simple criteria of admitting to the deed. This suggests that a common meaning of admission was intended by Legislators, rather than a strict interpretation comparable to a guilty plea in court.
  5. The Court finds that, had Legislators intended for guilt beyond a reasonable doubt or similar strict precondition to be required, the pathway of admission would have likely been omitted, as admissions could also be submitted as evidence in criminal trials. In this, the Court also considers that even the mere appearance of member criminality, for example through members brazenly admitting to criminal actions, whether true or not, can severely harm or undermine the reputation of Parliament as an institution, thus constituting potentially undesirable behavior.
  6. The Court finds that, in common language, ‘to admit smth.’ can refer to any statement affirming that something is true, even accidentally or indirectly through sufficiently strong logical inference.
  7. The Court finds that the 1st Fundamental Protection does not necessarily protect persons against their words being used as evidence or to satisfy criteria for punishment.
  8. The Court agrees with the Defendant that the only way a person can “try out” bank robbery, without training or debugging commands, is by performing or attempting to perform a bank robbery.
  9. The Court agrees with the Defendant that playful banter or a lighthearted or carefree mood or atmosphere does not, by itself, invalidate an admission, without some clear indication of insincerity.
  10. The Court does not find any sufficiently convincing reason to doubt the sincerity of the Plaintiff’s alleged admission within the evaluated sequence of events from the presented evidence.
  11. As such, the Court finds that the Plaintiff’s statement (“I just wanted to try out the bank robbery feature”) meets the requirement of Upstanding MPs Act §2.d, within this context.

Decision:​

The Azalea Isles District Court hereby rules in favor of the Defendant.

  1. The Emergency Injunction against Parliament requested by the Plaintiff and granted by the Court on 2026-05-24 is hereby lifted, effective immediately.
  2. The Plaintiff is ordered to pay the appeal fee of $200 for their Interlocutory Appeal to the State, in accordance with Court Reformation Act §7.b.
  3. The State is ordered to pay to the witness a summoning fee of $100, as well as per-question fees in the sum of $90 for the questions asked by the Defendant and the Court.
  4. The Plaintiff is ordered to pay to the witness per-question fees in the sum of $20 for the questions asked by Plaintiff.
  5. Plaintiff and the State are both ordered to submit proof of completion for the ordered payments to this thread within 7 days.




This trial is hereby concluded. The Court thanks both parties for their time.

Please note that if either party wishes to appeal to the Supreme Court, the request must be made here within one week of this Court Verdict.

Signed,
Hon. Judge Iturgen “jotoho” Bolir
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top