Case: Pending Azalea Isles v. Kli Astonmartin (2025) CR 07

Prosecutor: Fauz Wolfe (fauzfauzfauz) and Hanuta Brehmer (RealHanuta)
Defendant: Kli Astonmartin (kli_20)
The Defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of Azalea Isles v. Kli Astonmartin. Failure to respond within 48 hours may result in a default judgement. Both parties are ask to familiarize themselves with the relevant court documents, including proper formats, as well as the laws referenced in the complaint. Ensure that you comply with any court orders.

If you wish to hold this trial at the Azalea Courthouse in-person, please note that in your response. The Court will try to work with both parties to hold live hearings at convenient times.
Signed,
Hon. Chief Justice Raymond West

Answer to Criminal Complaint:

The Defendant wishes to plead Guilty on the 1x count of Trespassing.
The Defendant wishes to plead Not Guilty on the 1x count of Bank Robbery.

Legal Defenses or Challenges:

The prosecution has failed to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt that my client participated in Bank Robbery. The only provided evidence shows that he was inside of the bank, aka trespassing, but no proof of actual robbery was shown.

Furthermore, there is no proof provided of any money having been stolen nor any source provided by the $1,000 average of the robberies.

Verification:

I, Random Intruder, hereby affirm that the allegations in the answer AND all subsequent statements made in court are true and correct to the best of the defendant’s knowledge, information, and belief and that any falsehoods may bring the penalty of perjury.

The Prosecution has 48 hours to provide an opening statement

Motion to Amend the Criminal Case File

Your Honor, due to an issue with trying to upload evidence in the original file, I am requesting to add this additional screenshot into the record. The original pictures are too large, and my attempt to downsize failed for one of them.

Here is the evidence:



Opening Statement

Your Honor, this case is simple.

This was not an accident. There are instructions on how to commit bank robbery posted multiple times outside, part of which can be seen. One of the signs instructs citizens to break the iron block to begin to rob the bank. The words “BANK ROBBERY” appear across the screen upon entry. One does not simply wander into the bank, find their way down the stairs, and bring specific tools to break through the material the vault door is made of, if they do not intend to rob it. There is no other reason to be inside the bank, let alone the guarded vault area. In addition, the vault doors can only be broken into every 5 hours, meaning one has to meticulously plan a heist.

The Defense has already pleaded guilty to Trespassing, admitting illegal, forced entry into the restricted area of the bank. They allege that there remains a "reasonable doubt" that the Defendant did not rob the bank, but the vault is not publicly accessible without forced entry, which shows clear intent to enter unauthorized. There is no reasonable justification to enter the bank, and continue to progress through it, going towards the gold blocks that can be robbed, than to engage in bank robbery, and the Defendant is photographed doing this.

Finally, I want to clarify for the Defense and Your Honor that the Wiki states the amount to be stolen from the bank is a range of between $440 and $1760. Technically, the medium is $1100, but the Prosecution is praying for $1000 in government restitution.

Here is the Wiki link verifying the above information. I will also include a screenshot with the fact.
https://cityrp.wiki.gg/wiki/Crime#Robberies_and_Heists

Please let me know if the attached pictures failed to load. There should be two.

Given we are at an early point in the trial, the motion to amend is accepted.

The Defendant has 48 hours to provide an opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT

The government has once again doubled down on both the assumption of my client’s intention and success without proof of wrongdoing.

They have failed to prove that my client was breaking the blocks inside the bank. They have failed to prove that my client “[took] money, securities, or other valuables from a bank or financial institution.” They have failed to prove any money was made at all from breaking blocks in the bank, much less the $1,000 they took.

The prosecution states “There is no reasonable justification to enter the bank, and continue to progress through it, going towards the gold blocks that can be robbed, than to engage in bank robbery, and the Defendant is photographed doing this,” once again accusing my client of something they have no evidence of doing. There was no evidence that my client progressed through the bank, not even any evidence that there were gold blocks in the bank at that time, nor that anything has been taken. There is no “attempted bank robbery” crime, only successful bank robbery can be prosecuted, of which the prosecution consistently fails to prove.

The whole of the prosecution's case rests on an assumption of one crime because of another,
trespassing in the bank must equal bank robbery happening. However, there’s a reason why these are two different crimes: they are not equivalent in intention or effect. To use the proof of one as evidence of another would set horrible legal precedent for the burden of proof required for criminal cases.

Lastly, to once again argue on the average for the bank robbery, the math done in the evidence provided assumes that all 22 blocks of gold were broken, which there was no evidence of having been done by my client. To ask for recompensation for a crime on top of a punishment when the success of the crime or even whether it occurred at all is not proven would be preposterous.

Thank you both for your opening arguments. Each party has 48 hours to indicate if they wish to call any witnesses.

@fauzfauzfauz @RandomIntruder

Thank you Your Honor. We would like to call Luke ThegreatFired to the stand.

The defense wishes to call no witnesses.

The following individuals are required to appear before the court:

• Luke ThegreatFired (Luke201556)​

Please indicate your presence in this thread. Failure to respond within 72 hours may result in contempt of court.
Signed,
Hon. Justice Raymond West

I am present and acknowledge the summons.

The Prosecution has 48 hours to provide their questions to the witness, Luke.

@fauzfauzfauz

Mr. Luke, I greatly appreciate you taking the time to testify here today.

1. Can you summarize the message posted on the signs outside of the vault door?

2. Have you, in the past, robbed the bank?

3. If you recall, what happens as soon as you break the vault door?

4. If you recall, do you have to progress through the vault area until you find gold blocks, or are they near the vault door?

I apologise for the late response.

1. First front and centre stated "Bank Robbery" followed by an explanation of how a bank robbery is started and done. While explicitly stating that when you break open the vault door you are committing to doing a bank robbery.

2. I have previously been prosecuted on the basis of bank robbery.

3. You are presented with a timer and message which specifically states "Robbery Started You have broken into the bank" while also being given access to to the interior of the vault.

4. You must progress into the vault to a point when you can no longer see the entrance before you can find and access the gold blocks to mine in order to steal from the bank yes.

The Defendant will now be entitled to cross-examine the witness. You have 48 hours to provide your questions to Luke ThegreatFired, @RandomIntruder

Motion of Substitution of Council

Your Honor,

The prosecution wants to inform the court that there has been a Substitution of Council. Due to her resignation as the Minister of Justice, Fauz Wolfe will no longer be an attorney in the further proceedings of this case. Her Deputy Chief Hanuta Brehmer will take the case from here on.

Additionally, the prosecution requests the advance of the case, considering that the 48 hours granted to the Defendant to question the witness have elapsed.

The Court accepts the Prosecution's substitution of counsel. Considering that the Defence has not responded within the 48 hours to cross-examine the witness, we will move forward.

The Prosecution has 48 hours to present a closing statement. @RealHanuta

Your Honor,

At the beginning of this trial, the prosecution charged the Defendant with two offences which are Trespassing and Bank Robbery. At least one of them, the Trespassing, does not need further elaboration for it is as clear as a cloudless midsummer night’s sky. On the first hand, the evidence indisputably shows the Defendant breaking and advancing into the bank. On the second hand, Kli Astonmartin admitted to the allegations. Therefore he has to be found guilty on the account of Trespassing and charged with 5 minutes of jail time as well as a monetary fine of $150.

Not as clear seems to be, whether or not the Defendant committed Bank Robbery, at least in his lawyer’s opinion; but I beg to differ. The law demands that every Defendant needs to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt which is - and I will allow myself this remark - a correct and important principle. It is a simple sentence and yet it tells so much, including that there can still be doubt for it does not read “beyond a shadow of a doubt”. The defending lawyer has pointed out that there is no evidence, showing the Defendant stealing money from the bank, here present before the court, but that is not needed. We merely have to ask ourselves, if the lack of evidence produces a big enough doubt so that we can call it reasonable - and I think the answer is as follows: No. It would have been reasonable if the Defendant turned back, after seeing that he engaged in Bank Robbery, which multiple unmistakable warnings told him. It would have been reasonable, if he did not advance further into the bank, for which there is no other good reason but to get to the golden blocks within to steal them. But that did not happen. The Defendant showed clear signs of intending to rob the bank. Believing that he changed his mind at the last second is questionable and rather far-fetched. There is no reasonable doubt that someone who continues to proceed further into the vault, after being presented with the warnings outside the vault and during breaking into the vault, is doing so to engage in bank robbery.

I request that the defendant be convicted of Bank Robbery in addition to Trespassing.

Thank you.

The Defence has 48 hours to present a closing statement. @RandomIntruder