Case: Pending Biscuit Cookie v. Azalea Isles (2026) CV 27

[Aero]

Your Honour,

Section 2(d) of the Upstanding MPs Act clearly states that "For a crime to be countable for sanctions under this Act, the perpetrator must have admitted to the deed or been found guilty by the Judiciary." That provision is unambiguous: only a real admission or a judicial finding of guilt may trigger sanctions under the Act.

Exhibit D-001 does not satisfy that requirement. The statement, "I just wanted to try out the bank robbery feature," is not an unequivocal admission of criminal conduct. It is an expressive, non-factual remark made during a stressful moment and should be read as a joke or an offhand comment, not as an admission that the Plaintiff intended or committed the crime. There is no independent evidence showing planning, tools, or other conduct that would corroborate it as a confession.

To treat this brief remark as the statutory "admission" would improperly convert protected speech into proof of guilt. Article 1's protection for freedom of thought, belief and political opinion covers remarks like this; the State must produce clear, corroborating evidence before using casual or joking speech as the basis for sanctions. No such corroboration exists here.

The Court should therefore find that Exhibit D‑001 does not constitute an admission under Section 2(d) and should be excluded as the predicate for sanctions, or, at minimum, be held legally insufficient to trigger sanctions under the Act.

 

[jotoho]

Defendant, please provide your opening arguments within 48 hours.

 

[Phoenix Flamesong]

Your honor,

The plaintiff was found inside the vault, robbing the bank. The plaintiff was caught, inside the bank, and later logged off the game, forcing them to serve the bank robbery charge that they had received by being caught by a police officer in the bank. In response to this, the plaintiff said, "I just wanted to try out the bank robbery feature."

This is a clear admittance. The only way you can "try" the bank robbery feature is by committing the crime, unless you are an officer with the bank training command specifically to train new officers on how a bank robbery may go. There is clear evidence that this crime was not only committed, but admitted to, and therefore, sanctions should be put into effect according to the act, because all the evidence was there, according to the act.

 

[jotoho]

Thank you to both parties for your opening arguments.

I ask that each party submit within 48 hours either a list of witnesses you wish to call, or a statement that you do not wish to call any witnesses.

 

[Phoenix Flamesong]

Your honor,
The defense would like to call Daniel Spezi as a witness.

 

[Aero]

The plaintiff was found inside the vault, robbing the bank. The plaintiff was caught, inside the bank, and later logged off the game, forcing them to serve the bank robbery charge that they had received by being caught by a police officer in the bank. In response to this, the plaintiff said, "I just wanted to try out the bank robbery feature."

This is a clear admittance.

MOTION TO STRIKE
Your Honour,

The Defense's opening statement asserts facts and concludes guilt without foundation (e.g., "was found inside the vault, robbing the bank"; "is a clear admittance"). Those statements are not evidence, are argumentative, and risk misleading the Court. I move to strike those portions from the record and request the the Defense be directed not to repeat them. In the alternative, require the Defense to state the evidentiary basis for each challenged assertion.

 

[Phoenix Flamesong]

**Response to Motion to Strike**

Your honor,

To begin, according to court definitions, this is not what a motion to strike is to be used for. In Motions and Objections, in the court library, a motion to strike is listed as
"Motion to Strike: A request to remove certain facts, claims, or defenses from the complaint or answer of the case."

This is not the complaint or answer. This is the opening statement.

Additionally, these statements are backed by Daniel Spezi, the arresting officer. This is the very person the defense has called to witness. Our opening statements were to start the case. Our witness statements will build upon this. Prior precedent for this is shown in Death Thegreatfired v. Azalea Isles (2026) CV24, where the plaintiff motioned to strike something from the opening statements of the defense and it was denied as witness testimony could later potentially back it up.

Because of this, we ask the court to deny the motion to strike.