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 (see https://www.cityrp.org/forum/topic/17-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 (see https://www.cityrp.org/forum/topic/17-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.

The prosecution will post the opening statement in the near future.

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 (see https://www.cityrp.org/forum/topic/17-criminal-code/#post-18). 

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:

The defendant is a citizen of the Royal Colonies the moment he first flew into the Royal Colonies. He is therefore a citizen.

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.

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.

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.

The_Donuticus:

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.

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 (see https://www.cityrp.org/forum/topic/6-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” (see screenshot below) 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:

Spoiler

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.