Your honor,

The plaintiff is going to need additional time. We are asking for an extension to 6/2/2024 6:00 pm EST. We have currently received a new influx of evidence that we are in the process of evaluating and synthesizing. We humbly ask that you grant this request.

Respectfully submitted,
Matthew Romanus Prosecutor for The Royal Colony of the Azalea Isles

Objection your honor,

This case has already taken 2 weeks - my client has been put through a ringer by the Prosecution with flimsy evidence and a complete mess of a case. The Prosecution has been out publicly asking for individuals to come forward to be witnesses against Krix, we believe that individuals with a vendetta against Krix for other reasons will be falsely coming forward as "witnesses" and this will eat up endless amounts of time in this case - all of this is evidence that the Prosecution should have had ready before they dragged my client through the streets, violated his rights, and publicly made him out to be a villain. 

You have given the Prosecution endless chances to correct their mistakes, your honor please do not give them another chance - lets just end this here. 

Matthew100x:

Your honor,

The plaintiff is going to need additional time. We are asking for an extension to 6/2/2024 6:00 pm EST. We have currently received a new influx of evidence that we are in the process of evaluating and synthesizing. We humbly ask that you grant this request.

Respectfully submitted,
Matthew Romanus Prosecutor for The Royal Colony of the Azalea Isles

In the interest of justice, I will grant the extension. The defense can question the witnesses or other evidence after it's introduced.

Motion of Recusal

It is with a heavy heart that the Defence submits this motion. We request that Justice MilkCrack recuse himself from this trial as he has acted in a bias manor in favor of the Prosecution, we are unaware if this is due to malice or a predisposition towards my client or just a failure to keep this court in order, as we will outline the evidence for such below:

1. The first case of bias in favor of the Prosecution was at the start of this trial, the Prosecution initially filed this case as a civil trial. Instead of dismissing the trial and allowing them to refile it correctly the Justice instead smoothed over their mistake and even corrected their mistakes for them.

2. The Justice then further allowed the Prosecution to double down on their mistake and submit a criminal complaint onto their already misfiled civil complaint within the one case.

3. The Justice automatically filed this case, naming it 'CR 01', as a criminal trial despite the fact that the Prosecution had filed it as a civil case - further correcting the Prosecutions negligence, possibly in order to allow their case to find my client guilty whatever the cost may be.

4. The Justice only chose to correct the mistake of the Prosecution, in filing the case as a civil trial and not as a criminal one, once the Defence had followed in referring to the case as a civil trial. Clearly showing that they had noticed the mistake of the Prosecution but, potentially, had hoped to be able to ignore it.

5. When considering the question of the ability of the MoJ to detain the Defendant the Justice only quoted, and clearly only considered, Section 4.1 & Section 4.1a of the criminal code - despite the fact that Section 4.1b had been previously mentioned by the Defence. This clause would have made the actions of the AIPD illegal, however the Justice completely ignored it.

6. The Justice once again allowed the Prosecution leniency in fixing their mistake by allowing them to amend their original filing to include the factual allegations of Murder, instead of just dismissing the charges immediately and making them refile the case, asking the Prosecution to "Please also include as many details as possible" - details they would not end up providing, with the Justice ignoring the exclusion of detail.

7. The Justice showed a very clear bias against the Defence in writing a warning directed to the Defence regarding their 'Motion of Perjury' due to the lie told by the Prosecution of "No" to the question "Can the crime-watcher system give a robbery alert if no money was taken out of someone's account?" - this is an obvious lie given that the system obviously has faults as highlighted by the Defence. On submitting this fact the Justice treated the Defence as if they were lying, warning them against "capricious motions for the purposes of rhetorics" - prejudging the statement made to be false, without any evidence. 

8. In response to the Defence motioning for perjury the Prosecution proceeded to threaten and then file frivolous and frankly insane motions. Asking for sanctions against the Defence for acts such as: "refusing to acknowledge legal evidence from our crime watcher’s system" - Which the Defence proved could make mistakes, "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" - attempting to blame his own mistake for filing the case as a civil trial on the Defence, and finally in that motion "the defendant’s counsel is harming the defendant’s legal interest" attempting the most disgusting act of directly attacking the  opposing counsel as failing their client, when the only thing so far that had protected our client was the hard work of the opposing counsel. This completely unhinged, illegal, and crazed attack on the Defence was not even met with warning from the Justice - with the Justice instead choosing in their response to warn the Defence as mentioned in point 7. 

9. The Prosecution clearly threated the Defence, however when this was submitted to the court the Justice chose to completely ignore this and instead warn both sides against "ad hominem attacks and the dramatization of this case", there was a clear abuse of power where threats were made not against the defendant in the case but the lawyer of the defendant, in an attempt to deprive the Defendant of their right to counsel - however this was glossed over and ignored by the Justice. 

10. The Justice, despite warning that capricious Motions of Perjury would be punished in their court, chose to ignore the fact that the Prosecution had made a Motion of Perjury against the Defence for "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." despite acknowledging multiple times that this was a mistake made by the Prosecution. In fact the very act of making this Motion of Perjury was in fact Perjury by the Prosecution - as the Prosecution knew the mistake in filing it as a civil trial started with them, however the Justice rushed past these facts further forgiving the Prosecution their mistakes. 

11. The Justice has allowed the Prosecution to spend further time scraping up the evidence they should have gathered two weeks ago, at this point my client has spent nearly 2 hours in jail, 2 weeks in court. The Prosecution has been given every single chance to correct their mistakes - but when the Justices thinks that the Defence has made a mistake he choses to deliver a cold hard warning, despite the fact that the Defence was in the right. This is not a court of justice, this should have been ruled a mistrial two weeks ago - the fact this case continues is a truly terrible thing. 

Your honor,

Thank you for the extension necessary to complete the analysis and synthetization of the influx of evidence we received. To begin with, please see the following imgur links:

https://imgur.com/a/Rbgqlon - This is the list of people that Krix killed on the date of the prosecution. It is important to note that not every person slain results in a murder charge. Your only charge with murder by our crime-watchers system if the person you killed use /911 on you. Whereas our crime-watchers system will automatically charge you with robbery if /rob is used on someone.

https://imgur.com/a/5HOrDzf - We have witnesses confirming that they were robbed by Krix on that date. These witnesses were identified after the screenshots in #global-chat were received.

https://imgur.com/a/EB9DvdJ - This is the screenshot of /baltop taken on the date of 5/31/2024. This is to investigate who was likely to have a $0 dollar balance on the date of the crime (and therefore if robbed, the robber would have gotten nothing and not been guilty of robbery).

The screenshots reveal that the following people had a chance of being robbed out of 14 attempts:

5 chances it was Dusty who was robbed.

6 chances it was xBlu3 who was robbed.

2 chances it was WaffleSlime who was robbed.

2 chances it was GuardianCycle who was robbed.

2 chance it was Ansgardd who was robbed.

1 chance it was Donut who was robbed.

1 chance it was Reppal who was robbed.

The Prosecution is only requesting for 12 charges of robbery. However, Krix did commit 14 attempts at robbery as seen in the screenshots given in the opening arguments (see https://imgur.com/a/HA9RsTI).

As such, we would like to submit the following statistical analysis:

For Witnesses, we would like to call the following witnesses:
- xBlu3 (Victim)
- Ansgardd (Victim)
- RandomIntruder (Expert Witness to speak on probabilities)
- SimplyMadi (Witness for victim xBlu3)

If I may be allowed this simple addition to the above evidence. The statistical analysis made the assumption that 8 chances had a zero balance.

This is made on the following assumptions:

5/8 Dusty currently has a negative balance.

2/8 xBlu3 transferred her balance to SimplyMadi after being robbed multiple times.

1/8 Donut is the defendant's counsel and is assumed to state that he transferred his balance (or kept it in his company) prior to being killed by the defendant on that day.

ON THE MOTION FOR RECUSAL

Counsellor,

I acknowledge the submission of your motion for recusal and understand your hope for sanctions in the form of dismissal due to the extent of the trial.

It's important to consider that this is the first case, and therefore, I have extended leniency towards both the prosecution and the defence.

This case has always been criminal in nature; a formatting mistake does not constitute a get-out-of-jail-free card. As for the motion of perjury, the prosecution did give an answer, which turned out to be factually incorrect or misleading. However, there was no evidence that this was done knowingly, and the issue was quickly resolved.

It appears that the entire motion is based on a lack of sanctions for the opposing counsel and a conditional warning that would be issued if the defendant made an unsubstantiated claim, along with a reminder to both parties to adhere to the rules of decorum. These are not valid reasons for recusal.

Therefore, I see no reason to interpret this as bias and will not issue a recusal. You are welcome to petition the Queen for further redress; however, as far as this court is concerned, the motion is denied and this issue has been settled.

The evidence presented by the prosecution is entered into the record and the defence has 48 hours to submit their opening statement (by the 5th of June 2024 7 pm GMT +1).

Your honor, we still have a Motion to Strike with regards to the murder charges unanswered.

The_Donuticus:

Your honor, we still have a Motion to Strike with regards to the murder charges unanswered.

The motion to strike is denied, the alert from the crime-watcher system for the murder charge is compelling enough evidence to continue. However, the court will take due notice of the lack of information provided by the crime-watcher system when looking at the evidence presented in favour of any affirmative defences.

I apologize for the lateness of this request however yesterday I had a personal issue I had to attend to, if it is at all possible for a little extra time to get in opening statement that would be appreciated.