The Prosecution is a fucking liar your honour and I am happy with legal counsel.

MilkCrack:

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?

I have been informed that it is the case by my client as this is what has happened to him, I would be happy to arrange for a demonstration for the court - however I would be arrested by the MoJ for doing so. 

ORDER ON MOTION FOR SANCTION

Although I agree with the prosecution that an objection on the grounds of perjury is an aggressive choice and make no mistake, should this claim be found capricious, the defence will face admonishment from this court and possible sanctions but I will wait to hear the evidence before doing so.

As to the other points,  the defence has the legal right, and duty, to question the evidence presented by the prosecution. This is not a reason for sanctions.

Their misfiled civil complaint was a response to the prosecution's own mislabeled complaint, thus any fault lies primarily with the prosecution, not the defence. Apart from this, I do not see any instance the defence has failed to follow any orders of the court. So I will be denying this ground for sanctions

Furthermore, it is presumed that all individuals residing on the Azalea Isles are citizens. Despite the defence's assertion of their independence, they have not formally, willfully and knowingly waived their right to citizenship. Therefore, their rights, as stipulated in the mandate for the Isles, remain protected. These rights include the right to assistance of counsel and the choice thereof. Consequently, I will place a high burden on disqualifying an attorney to represent people in a court of law.

As such, I will be dismissing the above points and waiting for the evidence on the perjury objection before continuing.

Now for the defence, I expect concrete evidence to substantiate the claims of perjury as I will not tolerate capricious motions for the purposes of rhetorics. Please clarify how you can prove that the crime-watcher system still issues an alert even if no amount of money is stolen.

Furthermore, this court is appalled, by the ad hominem attacks and the dramatization of this case both in and out of this courtroom. If this continues I will be issuing a gag order and possible sanctions. All parties are to adhere strictly to the facts, the law and the rules of decorum.


IT IS SO ORDERED.

As I have previously stated your honor, I am happy to arrange for a demonstration - however doing so will lead to arrest by the MoJ. Perhaps a court order from yourself to allow this demonstration to take place?

Would the prosecution object to co-operate in such a demonstration?

They can do the test without issue and release a video. We will also do the same to test.

Just as a set aside. If there is an issue with the plugin regarding 0 balance and reporting a robbery where nothing was stolen, the police nor I would have a reason to know since its not our business to commit crime. Its our job to stop crime, not start it.

I tested it and recorded a video. You can indeed rob someone for $0.00 dollars and be reported for a robbery by our crime-watchers system, which would inherently be a false report by our system since nothing was stolen.

Motion for Sanctions:

In presenting this perjury to the court, wherein the Prosecution stated "No" to the question "Can the crime-watcher system give a robbery alert if no money was taken out of someone's account?" - which is not true and a false statement. It has been verified by the MoJ that the system can indeed give a false positive. In presenting this the Prosecution decided to threaten the defense, and when we would not acquiesce to their threats they made the ridiculous 'Motion for Sanctions' & a 'Motion of Perjury' of their own - as a sort of tit for tat, a quid pro quo.

Spoiler

"I'm going to ask once" and "You will have to deal with consequence if you do not", the Prosecution intended to wield a malicious 'Motion for Sanctions' & a 'Motion of Perjury' for the purposes of intimidating me into not raising that they lied about the crime watchers system - facts which their entire case relied upon. I was merely doing my job of representing my client to the best of my ability, and even then I was treated as if I was making up that the crime watchers system was a failure - being warned against "capricious motions for the purposes of rhetorics".

Your honor the Prosecutions motions were capricious, as you rightly pointed out yourself you cannot sanction a lawyer for representing their client. It was a grasp at the straws attempt to follow up on a threat to save their own skin. Your honor the Prosecution is flailing, we ask that you sanction them for their behavior in this matter and at least an apology from them. 

To the Honorable MilkCrack,

Motion to Sanction Defendant’s Counsel:

The Plaintiff, respectfully submits this Motion to Sanction Defendant’s Counsel for Abuse of Process, pursuant to the Court’s inherent authority to regulate the conduct of its proceedings.

Grounds for Motion:

Defendant’s Counsel has engaged in a pattern of abusive and dilatory tactics throughout these proceedings, including but not limited to:

Excessive filing of frivolous motions: Defendant’s Counsel has repeatedly filed motions for perjury against Plaintiff’s counsel, despite the lack of any credible evidence to support such allegations. These motions are nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to harass and intimidate opposing counsel.

Abuse of motions for sanction: Defendant’s Counsel has also filed a motion for sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel, in a blatant attempt to divert attention from their own misconduct and to intimidate Plaintiff’s counsel into abandoning their claims.

Disrespect towards the Prosecution: Throughout these proceedings, the Defendant’s Counsel has consistently demonstrated a lack of professionalism and respect towards the Prosecution. Their actions have been replete with discourtesy, sarcasm, and an utter disregard for the legal process.

Argument:

The excessive filing of frivolous motions and abuse of motions for sanctions constitutes a clear abuse of process. Such tactics are designed to harass, intimidate, and waste the time and resources of opposing counsel, as well as the Court’s valuable time and resources.

Defendant’s Counsel’s actions demonstrate a blatant disregard for the integrity of these proceedings and the dignity of this Court. Their disrespect towards the prosecution is a clear indication of their willingness to undermine the legitimacy of these proceedings. Such behavior is unacceptable and warrants sanction.

Relief Requested:

Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court:

Sanction Defendant’s Counsel: Impose sanctions against Defendant’s Counsel in an amount sufficient to deter future abuse of process;

Compel Defendant’s Counsel to comply with the rules of procedure: Order Defendant’s Counsel to refrain from filing further frivolous motions or engaging in abusive tactics.

Respectfully submitted,

Matthew Romanus Prosecutor for The Royal Colony of the Azalea Isles

On the admissibility of the crime-watcher system

Based on the principles of general jurisprudence, a crime is comprised of two essential elements: mens rea and actus reus. Mens rea refers to the guilty mind, while actus reus refers to the guilty act.

After thoroughly considering the information presented by both parties, I find that the Crime-Watcher system is admissible as evidence. However, since, by the state's admission, the Crime-Watcher system can issue an alert without necessarily leading to the withdrawal of money from an individual's account, the alert does not fulfil the complete definition of the charge of robbery on its own

"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."

Consequently, while the Crime-Watcher system can be utilized to establish the mens rea (guilty mind) element of the robbery charge, it is insufficient to substantiate the actus reus (guilty act) required for a conviction of robbery.

If the state seeks to penalize the use of the /rob command on its own, it should either criminalize the act of using this command or provide for attempted robbery or other inchoate crimes.

On the motions for sanctions:

Given that this is among the initial trials, I will extend a degree of leniency, particularly in the absence of clear guidelines on the format and substance of motions.

The prosecution's motion for sanctions is denied. Having already issued a warning to both parties, I will not impose sanctions for prior behaviour that has already been addressed.

Regarding the defence's motion, I do not find sufficient evidence indicating that the prosecution's actions were intended to knowingly deprive the defence of any legal rights and as such also dismiss this motion.

In the future, please do not claim the opposing council is committing perjury when you cannot provide evidence that the opposing council is intentionally committing deception.

When the opposing council is giving incorrect information presented as fact, a motion to strike a statement or an objection based on factually incorrect information is generally preferred.

Statutory Interpretation of the Criminal Code

As for the issues raised earlier, the necessity of taking these crimes to court, I rule as follows:

The criminal code states: "1. In any instance where a crime could result in a punishment of a fine exceeding $1,000 or a jail term of 30 minutes or more, a prosecutor must head the case."

Thus, any crime with a maximum punishment exceeding 30 minutes in jail or a fine over $1,000 must be taken to court. Since the judge is responsible for sentencing and may deviate from the maximum requested by the prosecution, it is irrelevant whether the state's requested sentence is below these thresholds. Additionally, the combined punishment for multiple petty crimes is not relevant; the punishment is considered for each crime separately.

So based on the interpretation of the criminal code, the robbery charges are required to be taken to court, whilst the murder charges is not as the maximum punishment for murder does not exceed the thresholds.

Motion to dismiss

Before ruling on the motion to dismiss, I would like to ask the state one final time whether they have any other evidence of the alleged robberies, other than the crime-watcher system.

If not the robberie charges will be dismissed, and only the murder charge shall remain.