Lawsuit: In Session Commonwealth of Redmont v. Fletchingrs [2026] SCR 16

T

TheSnowGuardian

Citizen
Justice Department
Commerce Department
6th Anniversary Change Maker Contemptable
TheSnowGuardian
TheSnowGuardian
Investigator
Joined
Jan 16, 2026
Messages
349

Case Filing


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION


Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Fletchingrs
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Prosecution alleges criminal actions committed by the Defendant as follows:

I. PARTIES
1. Commonwealth of Redmont
2. Fletchingrs

II. FACTS
1. The Department of Justice received a report on 1 April 2026 about a plan to kill the Ambassador and the King. (P-001, P-002)
2. The Defendant approached Prisim and asked them to engage in activities that included killing the Ambassador to Redmont from Alexandria and the King of Alexandria. (P-001, P-002)
3. The Defendant also wanted the “whole event shot up” (P-001)
4. There was an event held on the 3rd April 2026 between the Kingdom of Alexandria and the Commonwealth of Redmont. (P-003)
5. The Ambassador to Redmont from Alexandria was a part of this event. (P-003)
6. The Defendant identified the date of the event in his conversation with Prisim. (P-001, “... at the party the embassy [of Alexandria] is hosting on the third”)
7. The Defendant also wanted to kill relations between Redmont and Alexandria. (P-001, “We need to kill relations between the two”)
8. The event concerned the signing of a treaty that established relations between the Commonwealth of Redmont and the Kingdom of Alexandria. (P-003, P-004)
9. The event was announced beforehand on the 29th March 2026 in #government-announcements. (P-003)
10. The Defendant expressed willingness to provide Prisim with guns. (P-001, Prisim: “i need a gun”, Defendant: “i can get one”)
11. The Ambassador (Thirtystone) and the King (AsexualDinosaur) are citizens of Redmont. Constitution, Part V, §35(8).
12. The Defendant had the means and the monetary funds to supply the firearms to Prisim. (P-005)

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. Conspiracy to Commit Treason

Treason is committed where a person maliciously sabotages or undermines the security or stability of the Government of Redmont. CCA, Part II, §4.

Conspiracy to Commit a Crime is defined as where a person intends to commit a crime, even if it isn’t carried out. Id. at Part X, §14.

The Defendant intended to kill relations between the Commonwealth of Redmont and the Kingdom of Alexandria and thus intended to undermine and sabotage the stability of the Government.

2. Incitement of Treason

Incitement is committed when a person encourages someone else to break the law. Id. at §1.

The Defendant encouraged Prisim to break the law by asking them to undermine the stability of the Government of Redmont and commit treason. Thus, the Defendant incited someone to break the law.

3. Incitement to be a Public Nuisance

A Public Nuisance is defined as a person who willfully disrupts a government event or interferes with the execution of such an event. Id. at Part V, §5.

This event was already announced to be public by the Ambassador of Redmont to Alexandria. (supra at Fact 10)

By asking/encouraging Prisim to kill the Ambassador and “the whole event shot up”, the Defendant incited Prisim to interfere with the execution of the event and also planned to disrupt the event.

4. Incitement of Murder x2

Murder is committed when a person unlawfully kills another player. Id at Part IV, § 3.
By asking/encouraging Prisim to kill the Ambassador(Thritystone), the Defendant incited Prisim to break the law.

Similarly, by asking/encouraging Prisim to kill the King(AsexualDinosaour), the Defendant incited Prisim to break the law.
5. Conspiracy to:

A) Be an Accomplice to Treason
By intending to provide Prisim with guns with the intention that the relations of the two nations would turn sour, the Defendant conspired to be an accomplice to Treason, as Prisim would have committed the crime of Treason should they have partaken in the killing activities.

B) Be an Accomplice to Public Nuisance
By intending to provide Prisim with guns with the intention that the event would be disrupted, the Defendant conspired to be an accomplice to a Public Nuisance, as Prisim would have committed the crime of being a Public nuisance should they have partaken in the killing activities.

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. For Conspiracy to Commit Treason, 50% of the Original Crime, which is 250 Penalty Units and 1 Month Disqualification from Office.
2. For Incitement of Treason, 15 Penalty Units and 30 Minutes of Imprisonment.
3. For Inciting Someone to be a Public Nuisance, 15 Penalty Units and 30 Minutes of Imprisonment.
4. For the Incitement of Murder of Thritystone, 15 Penalty Units and 30 Minutes of Imprisonment.
5. For the Incitement of Murder of AsexualDinosaur, 15 Penalty Units and 30 Minutes of Imprisonment.
6. For Conspiracy to be an Accomplice to Treason, 50%*75%*500 Penalty Units, which is 187.5 Penalty Units, and 50%*75%*60 days, which is 22.5 days, Disqualification from Office.
7. For Conspiracy to be An Accomplice to Public Nuisance, 5.625 Penalty Units.


In total, 503.125 Penalty Units, 1 Month and 22.5 days Disqualification from Office, and 120 Minutes of Imprisonment.

Note: The amount of one penalty unit should be 100$ as the date the crime is alleged to have been committed is before the enactment of the MTR Act.

1782997450886.png

1782997455387.png

1782997460710.png

1782997466308.png

1782997474923.png

1782997486877.png

1782997491399.png

See attached ‘SC-DC Treaty.pdf’

By making this submission, I agree that I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 28th day of June 2026.

 

Attachments

Last edited:
I will be presiding officer in this matter.

Court Order


SUPREME COURT OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - JURISDICTION & CLAIM

The Supreme Court is unsure of the prima facie integrity of this filing. In dual issue, this Court commands the Commonwealth (@TheSnowGuardian, @AmityBlamity) to show:

  1. How, precisely, with appropriate authority cited, does this case fall within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and not with the Federal Court?
  2. How is an allegation of providing weaponry that (assuming the underlying allegations are correct) would have been used to murder someone create the conditions for treason to occur?
You will have seventy-two hours.

 
Smallfries said:
I will be presiding officer in this matter.

Court Order


SUPREME COURT OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - JURISDICTION & CLAIM

The Supreme Court is unsure of the prima facie integrity of this filing. In dual issue, this Court commands the Commonwealth (@TheSnowGuardian, @AmityBlamity) to show:

  1. How, precisely, with appropriate authority cited, does this case fall within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and not with the Federal Court?
  2. How is an allegation of providing weaponry that (assuming the underlying allegations are correct) would have been used to murder someone create the conditions for treason to occur?
You will have seventy-two hours.

Click to expand...
Your Honour, the CW asks if this brief can be presented in-game through VC first and then post it later on the forums, and asks for a sidebar on the same.
 
TheSnowGuardian said:
Your Honour, the CW asks if this brief can be presented in-game through VC first and then post it later on the forums, and asks for a sidebar on the same.
Click to expand...
What would be the purpose or benefit of this? This is a brief, there will be no argumentation or questioning. This will just be you talking at us until you are done. And what would you need a sidebar for?
 
Smallfries said:
What would be the purpose or benefit of this? This is a brief, there will be no argumentation or questioning. This will just be you talking at us until you are done. And what would you need a sidebar for?
Click to expand...
Your Honour, the Commonwealth will attempt to answer Your Honour's question in parts.

To the first part of the purpose, it is mainly roleplay oriented, and to further answer any question Your Honours might have instantaneously when our brief is submitted, pursuant to Court Rule 1.9.

To Your Honour's remark about no questioning, the Commonwealth humbly apologises. It was our assumption or an anticipation that the Court may have further questions after the brief was submitted.

To the question of the sidebar, to further not clutter the docket, should the in-game brief presentation be permitted, it would be to be used to talk about the specifics of when said presentation would happen.

The session may not necessarily be completely formal considering the other party has not been summoned, but it would give the Commonwealth more scope to explain the filings and to quench the current questions and any further questions that may immediately arise, and which Your Honours may have.
 
TheSnowGuardian said:
Your Honour, the Commonwealth will attempt to answer Your Honour's question in parts.

To the first part of the purpose, it is mainly roleplay oriented, and to further answer any question Your Honours might have instantaneously when our brief is submitted, pursuant to Court Rule 1.9.

To Your Honour's remark about no questioning, the Commonwealth humbly apologises. It was our assumption or an anticipation that the Court may have further questions after the brief was submitted.

To the question of the sidebar, to further not clutter the docket, should the in-game brief presentation be permitted, it would be to be used to talk about the specifics of when said presentation would happen.

The session may not necessarily be completely formal considering the other party has not been summoned, but it would give the Commonwealth more scope to explain the filings and to quench the current questions and any further questions that may immediately arise, and which Your Honours may have.
Click to expand...
I see. No, I do not think this would be necessary. I have no qualms with "roleplay," but I don't want to waste time on an already overburdened docket. Your filing posted here will be good enough, and if we call a defendant and they question something, perhaps then we'll hear something in court. But for something like this, I don't see much of a purpose other than delaying proceedings several days while we look for a time that suits all of us.
 
Smallfries said:
I will be presiding officer in this matter.

Court Order


SUPREME COURT OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - JURISDICTION & CLAIM

The Supreme Court is unsure of the prima facie integrity of this filing. In dual issue, this Court commands the Commonwealth (@TheSnowGuardian, @AmityBlamity) to show:

  1. How, precisely, with appropriate authority cited, does this case fall within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and not with the Federal Court?
  2. How is an allegation of providing weaponry that (assuming the underlying allegations are correct) would have been used to murder someone create the conditions for treason to occur?
You will have seventy-two hours.

Click to expand...
Your Honour, the Commonwealth asks for a 24 hour extension.
 
Your Honour, I apologise heavily. Something has come up IRL and I would greatly be at your mercy for more time.
 
I heavily apologise for the delay, Your Honour.

Brief


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Commonwealth of Redmont v. Fletchingrs [2026] SCR 16
BRIEF - RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (#2)

I. Jurisdictional Authority

The Court posed the question of jurisdiction to the Commonwealth,

1. How, precisely, with appropriate authority cited, does this case fall within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and not with the Federal Court?
Click to expand...

The charges that bring this criminal action to the Supreme Court of Redmont are (i) Conspiracy to Commit Treason, and (ii) Conspiracy to Be an Accomplice to Treason. [2026] SCR 16, Case Filing, Part III. § 1., and § 5. A).

The sentencing requested by the Commonwealth for these charges include but is not limited to, (i) for Conspiracy to Commit Treason, 1 month disqualification from office, and (ii) for Conspiracy to Be an Accomplice to Treason, 22.5 days disqualification from office. Id. at Part IV, § 1 and § 6.

It is this Court’s original jurisdiction to hear cases whose sentencing contains a disqualification from public office. See Constitution, Part II, § 20(1)(a).

As the Defendant is charged with crimes whose penalty includes being banned from office, the Commonwealth believes that the Supreme Court of Redmont has original jurisdiction to hear this case, not the Federal Court.

II. Conditions for Treason to Occur

The Court also asked the Commonwealth how providing weaponry would have created the conditions for treason to occur,
  1. How is an allegation of providing weaponry that (assuming the underlying allegations are correct) would have been used to murder someone create the conditions for treason to occur?
Click to expand...

A. On Conspiracy to Commit Treason

The Commonwealth would like to stress that the charge laid against the Defendant, Conspiracy to Commit Treason, does not merely arise out of the alleged fact that the Defendant was willing to provide weaponry. See [2026] SCR 16, Case Filing, III.1.(“The Defendant intended to kill relations between the Commonwealth of Redmont and the Kingdom of Alexandria and thus intended to undermine and sabotage the stability of the Government.”) See also II., Fact 7.

However, this is not the only ingredient of the crime. The Commonwealth also believes that the Defendant intended to commit treason by providing Prisim with firearms and weaponry that would have been used to kill a foreign dignitary at a treaty signing event that was important to the Commonwealth of Redmont.

The Commonwealth intends to prove at trial, should a trial be required, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Defendant intended to maliciously sabotage and undermine the stability and the security of the Government of Redmont and thus conspired to commit treason.

B. On Conspiracy to Be an Accomplice to Treason

As mentioned in the Case Filing, Prisim would have certainly maliciously sabotaged the security and the stability of the Government of the Redmont should they have chosen to partake in the killing activities and thus would have committed treason.

The Defendant clearly expressed willingness to be an accomplice by providing said guns that would have been used to kill the foreign dignitary at the treaty signing event.

C. Why Treason?

To address the question of why the Defendant has been charged with conspiracies surrounding treason, the Commonwealth will lay out to the Court 3 factors:

1. The Setting of the Event, 2. The Intended Targets, 3. Intention behind the Conspired Murders.

1. The Setting of the Event

In Fact 8, the Commonwealth alleges that the specific intention behind the event at the Alexandrian embassy was to sign a treaty symbolically that established relations between the Commonwealth and the Kingdom of Alexandria and the Defendant was already aware of the event (Fact 6).

This was a strategically important event to the Commonwealth, and any disturbances to it would have undermined the Government’s stability.

2. The Intended Targets

In Fact 2, the Commonwealth identified the intended targets who were to be murdered as the Alexandrian King and the Ambassador to Redmont from Alexandria (Thritystone).

However, these weren’t the only targets. The Commonwealth also identified that the Defendant wanted “the whole event shot up.” (Fact 3). Notably, the Commonwealth identifies that the President was supposed to be in attendance; however, the President could not make it, and the Vice President was present. (Fact 9, P-003). But the Defendant could not have known this, as the conspiracies took place on the 1st of April, while the announcement after the conclusion of the event was made on the 3rd of April, which identified the Vice President in attendance. Thus, the Vice President’s attendance is somewhat irrelevant and does not negate the fact that the Defendant conspired to be an accomplice to the security of the Government, or a significant member of the Government, i.e., the President.

Thus, the Defendant conspired to maliciously undermine and sabotage the security of the Government of Redmont.

3. Intention Behind the Conspired Murders

The main action of the Defendant that proves malice for the preceding two points is the statement identified in Fact 7, i.e., Defendant: “We need to kill relations between the two”. This goes to show that the Defendant maliciously intended to sabotage the security and stability of the Government.

On a final note, the degree of said sabotage to stability and security isn’t defined in the Criminal Code Act, which the Commonwealth uses to cite these charges. Only malice is required, which the Commonwealth believes it can sufficiently prove.

 

Writ of Summons


@Fletchingrs is required to appear before the Supreme Court in the case of Commonwealth of Redmont v. Fletchingrs [2026] SCR 16.

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.


I will preside.
 

Plea


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
PLEA

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Fletchingrs
Defendant

I. ENTRY OF PLEA
1. On one count of Conspiracy to Commit Treason, the Defendant pleas NOT GUILTY.
2. On one count of Incitement of Treason, the Defendant pleas NOT GUILTY.
3. On one count of Incitement to be a Public Nuisance, the Defendant pleas NOT GUILTY.
4. On two counts of Incitement of Murder, the Defendant pleas NOT GUILTY.
5. On one count of Conspiracy to Be an Accomplice to Treason, the Defendant pleas NOT GUILTY.
6. On one count of Conspiracy Be an Accomplice to Public Nuisance Defendant pleas NOT GUILTY.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 9th day of July, 2026

 
Pursuant to Rule 4.9 (Witness Protocol), the Defense submits the following list of witnesses.

-Fletchingrs
- Prisim
- Scassany Contour
 
Smallfries said:
The Court recognizes Defendant's plea of not guilty on all counts. Discovery will begin and last for seventy-two hours.
Click to expand...
Your Honour, the Commonwealth would like clarification on the duration of discovery. As per Rule 4.3, discovery lasts 5 days.
 
TheSnowGuardian said:
Your Honour, the Commonwealth would like clarification on the duration of discovery. As per Rule 4.3, discovery lasts 5 days.
Click to expand...
While in theory it is allowed to go below five days ("shall last up to five days") it is absolutely convention to always give the full five, and I do not have any reason to do otherwise, merely forgetting that not all deadlines were seventy-two hours. Someone get this man a true. Add forty-eight hours to my previous deadline, as is custom.
 
Your Honour, the Commonwealth submits the following into evidence pursuant to Rule 4.6.

1783715938949.png

Motion


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND

Your Honour,
Pursuant to Rule 3.3, the Commonwealth, upon obtaining this evidence, would like to add the following to Part II, Facts of the Complaint. (Where green text is added)

...
12. The Defendant had the means and the monetary funds to supply the firearms to Prisim. (P-005)

 
TheSnowGuardian said:
Your Honour, the Commonwealth submits the following into evidence pursuant to Rule 4.6.

View attachment 90362

Motion


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND

Your Honour,
Pursuant to Rule 3.3, the Commonwealth, upon obtaining this evidence, would like to add the following to Part II, Facts of the Complaint. (Where green text is added)

...
12. The Defendant had the means and the monetary funds to supply the firearms to Prisim. (P-005)

Click to expand...
Go ahead.
 
Smallfries said:
While in theory it is allowed to go below five days ("shall last up to five days") it is absolutely convention to always give the full five, and I do not have any reason to do otherwise, merely forgetting that not all deadlines were seventy-two hours. Someone get this man a true. Add forty-eight hours to my previous deadline, as is custom.
Click to expand...
Your Honour, discovery ended yesterday. I believe it is time for opening statements.
 
Hello, Attorney General Juniperfig here with a settlement offer.

I will give everyone in this case (lawyers, parties, judges) $2,500 each if you drop this case with prejudice.

Thank you for your time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
juniperfig said:
Hello, Attorney General Juniperfig here with a settlement offer.

I will give everyone in this case (lawyers, parties, judges) $2,500 each if you drop this case with prejudice.

Thank you for your time.
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court unanimously finds the former attorney general guilty of contempt of court under the then-active Criminal Code Act. We charge her with four counts of contempt—one for each justice of the Supreme Court this message appears to have solicited a bribe to, and one for the defendant. This shall be for fifty penalty units each, totaling 200 penalty units, or $24,000. We strike the offending message from the record.
 
NoMoreUno said:
Your Honor,

As the prosecution has been deported, the defense asks that either this case be dropped or a new prosecutor be assigned.
Click to expand...
As far as this court can see, the original prosecutor was not long deported and thus was, is, and shall remain (bar any changes) fully capable of posting. Nothing else is relevant.

However, they have also failed to request an extension for any extenuating circumstances. Therefore, the defense may proceed and shall have seventy-two hours to post their opening statement. @NoMoreUno @Fletchingrs
 
apologies for the "new prosecutor" request... heard it was a long deport and didnt fact-check 😱
also didnt need the extension lmao

Opening Statement


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

Have you ever said something that you didn't mean? You're human, so of course you have; you are not ingenuous all the time. The Defendant is also human, and likewise he is also not ingenuous all the time. The Prosecution seems to think otherwise.

The Defendant is accused of an extensive list of crimes, including conspiracy to commit treason, incitement of treason, conspiracy to be an accomplice to treason, incitement to be a public nusiance, incitement of murder, conspiracy to be an accomplice to be a public nuisance, and conspiracy to be a public nuisance. Using this large and intimidating list of charges, the Prosecution has vastly blown the actual severity of Fletchingrs's actions out of proportion; but if you take a step back and look at what the Defendant actually did, you'll find that he can't be reasonably proven guilty of any of the charges alleged of him.

1. On the Counts of Incitement​

Incitement occurs when, as the Prosecution correctly identified (under the CCA), a person encourages someone else to break the law. However, the Prosecution errs in their classification of the Defendant's actions as incitement.

The No More Uno Clarity Act removed the Oxford English Dictionary as universal standard for definitions. Regardless, we may still enhance our legal argument with definitions from the dictionary. In this case, the legal argument regarding the counts of incitement may be augmented with definitions of "coax" and "encourage" from a dictionary. If we are to turn to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary for these definitions, we obtain the following:

coax: to influence or gently urge by caressing or flattering; to draw, gain, or persuade by means of gentle urging or flattery; or to manipulate with great perseverance and usually with considerable effort toward a desired state or activity

encourage: to inspire with courage, spirit, or hope; to attempt to persuade; to spur on; or to give help or patronage to

While these definitions are not to be taken as law by the court, we are allowed to use them to help strengthen our argument. By these definitions, was the Defendant coaxing Prisim into anything? Certainly not. Nowhere shown did the Defendant attempt to manipulate Prisim into committing a crime, nor did he even attempt to urge or persuade him; from the very first message, Prisim seemed to be completely onboard and cooperative. He did not have to be coaxed into committing any crime. What about encouragement? Again, using our dictionary definitions, we find that the Defendant did not encourage Prisim to commit any crime; as previously shown, there was no attempt to persuade Prisim to commit a crime. The Defendant was not spurring Prisim on, either; Prisim had already shown himself to be onboard. The closest we get to meeting a definition of encouragement is if we are to evaluate the messages using the definition of "to give help or patronage to", as the Defendant showed he was willing to supply Prisim with a firearm; however, no such firearm was actually supplied, and thus no patronage or help was recieved. The Defendant was not actively encouraging Prisim to partake in a crime by any of these definitions; Prisim had already chosen to involve himself with the crime (or, at least feign that he was doing so), and needed no encouraging.

However, it strikes the Defendant that merely citing dictionary sources may not be enough, especially when relevant common law exists. In that case, let us take precedent the case of the Commonwealth of Redmont v. urbanbeau. The opinion of the court here was that "incitement can be applied to a player asking another player to commit a crime"- so, then, Defendant's guilt on the incitement charges here depends on whether or not he was sincerely asking Prisim to commit a crime. Prisim alleges that he was contacted by the Defendant and was offered a gun and cash kill two people. This is a misleading claim, and one that paints the Defendant in a more negative light. The messages between the two show that Prisim was the one who asked for a gun; he was not offered one initially. In addition to this, we can see that the Defendant had little to no actual plan. He failed to give details regarding the location or time of this event to Prisim; he, based on the inquiry as to what Prisim would need, had no idea how it would be carried out; he failed to ever actually deliver a gun to Prisim; he did not follow up or make any attempt to follow through on this himselfl; and, he certainly never executed his plan, seeing as evidence provided by the Prosecution explicitly shows us that the event went smoothly. It does not matter that he offered to pay Prisim money. While he had the funds, the offer was, like the rest of this plan, empty, and never meant to be executed.

The Defendant was clearly not being sincere with his offer. If he was truly trying to plan a killing and incite Prisim into committing a high crime, he would have formulated an actual plan; he would not have had no details and gone along with whatever his 'hitman' proposed. Alexandria is often the target of exaggerated political attacks (take, for instance, the recent proposed 'Rumbling') that never go anywhere, because they are insincere. This is another such example of an insincere proposal that never went anywhere; a proposal that was not intended to function as an actual 'killing of relations' and likely not even intended to result in murder but rather as either a way of expressing disapproval over Alexandria and Redmont cooperating or simply (and more likely) as another disingenuous joke re-using the common "Alexandria bad" trope; either of which are protected under the constitutional right to Freedom of Political Communication.

In conclusion:
1) The Defendant, by dictionary definition, did not incite anything
2) The Defendant did not sincerely ask another player to commit a crime and is innocent by common law precedent

2. On the Counts of Conspiracy​

The defense for all the charges of conspiracy borrow some elements from the defense of incitement. If the Defendant was not being sincere and did not seriously intend for this crime to take place, and, under the CCA, conspiracy is "when one intends to commit a crime, even if it has not yet been carried out", then the Defendant cannot be guilty of conspiracy. While this alone should be sufficient as a defense, we can further prove the Defendant innocent of conspiracy by breaking down each charge individually.

Conspiracy to be an Accomplice to Treason

The Prosecution argues that by intending to provide Prisim with a firearm, he maliciously intended to have relations between nations soured and thus conspired to be an accomplice to treason. Treason is when one "maliciously sabotages or undermines the stability, sovereignty, or national security of the Government of Redmont." Would a shooting have realistically stopped the agreement attached by the Prosection from being signed? Meeting in-person as an event is a formality; this document could have reasonably been signed even if both parties had been communicating solely from Discord in a voice channel. Claiming that a shooting would completely stop this presumably already-drafted document from being signed is absurd. Would a single shooting have soured relations between nations so strongly that it would have constituted an active threat to the Government of Redmont? The Prosecution seems to think so. The Defendant may have stated that his goal was to 'kill relations', but it's quite clear, as proven earlier, that this was never truly intended to go anywhere, and that the Defendant had no reason to assume relations would actually be killed.

Conspiracy to be an Accomplice to be a Public Nuisance

The Prosecution also argues that Prisim causing a shooting at the event would have constituted being a Public Nuisance. This charge (and in fact both charges) relies on the assumption that the Defendant intended to supply a firearm to Prisim. No evidence implying any firearm exists exists; nor does Prisim attest that he was ever given any kind of weapon. The Prosecution has provided proof that the Defendant had the finances to buy a firearm; while the Defendant may have "had the means and the monetary funds to supply the firearms to Prisim", it has not been proven that the Defendant ever held a firearm with the intent to give it to Prisim. While the Defendant did state that "I could get [a gun]", and "I can get that", expressing that he was capable of obtaining a firearm, he never said he actually stated that he had a firearm or that he was ready to give one to Prisim.

3. Freedom of Speech​

The explanation in the Incitement portion of this opening should have made it quite clear that, given the utter lack of any coherent, sufficiently detailed plan, the Defendant was not intending to act maliciously or even seriously, but rather intended to express either his disapproval of Alexandria and Redmont nuturing relations or to commit to an anti-Alexandrian bit; a fact that will likely be corroborated by testimony. Regardless of the motive, making a statement with either of these intentions is not treason and should not be treated as such. Imposing a punishment for what one said, regardless of whether it was a hyperbolical expression or a joke, is a clear violation of the rights that citizens have to free speech.

Nothing came of the Defendant's actions. The event went smoothly, and diplomatic relations were not soured. He never had any firearm to supply to Prisim. He never even gave at the time at which the event would occur. He clearly had no real plan to disrupt this event. He did not try again to disrupt relations when his first attempt failed. The Defendant was being, as humans sometimes are, disingenuous.

Fletchingrs is innocent.

Thank you.

 
Last edited:

Court Order


SUPREME COURT OF REDMONT
ORDER - SUMMONS

The following witnesses have been called and are asked to present themselves within seventy-two hours: (1) @Fletchingrs, (2) @prisim (pingable forum name not provided), and (3) @Scassany.

Please announce yourself when able.

 
Your honors, I apologize for posting this message when not being called upon in this case. As Attorney General, I am reviewing and realize that the Commonwealth failed to respond for the opening statement. Additionally, having now gone over the file, the facts, and the law; the Commonwealth would like to nolle this case and have it be dismissed with prejudice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top