Lawsuit: In Session Office of Attorney General vs MegaMinerM

[MegaMinerM]

In The Supreme Court of The Stratham Republic
OBJECTION: Counsel is Testifying
Date: 07/03/2025

Prosecution Quote:

“He confirmed, ‘Yes, in the name of national security.’ These were not hypotheticals but an attempt to delay or prevent elections.”

Justification:
The prosecution is interpreting a quote and asserting motive without presenting factual evidence or witness testimony. This crosses into testifying - the Attorney General is acting as a witness rather than arguing based on the record.

 

[MegaMinerM]

In The Supreme Court of The Stratham Republic
OBJECTION: Speculation / Relevance
Date: 07/03/2025

Prosecution Quote:

“He made no effort to seek help, showing deliberate neglect.”

Justification:
The claim that the Defendant showed “deliberate neglect” is speculative and subjective. It assumes motive from a lack of action without direct proof of intent. Additionally, whether the Defendant consulted a guide or predecessor is not directly relevant to the Treason charge. The Prosecution has also not shown evidence proving the Defendant never sought help, and lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

 

[MegaMinerM]

In The Supreme Court of The Stratham Republic
OBJECTION: Argumentative
Date: 07/03/2025

Prosecution Quote:

“Attempted treason is treason under the law. The effort, not just completion, is punishable.”

Justification:
The prosecution asserts a legal conclusion without proving that an attempt was made. This is an argumentative statement that assumes the very thing it sets out to prove - that the Defendant's discussions or delay constituted an “attempt.”

 

[MegaMinerM]

In The Supreme Court of The Stratham Republic
OBJECTION: Counsel is Testifying / Argumentative
Date: 07/03/2025

Prosecution Quote:

“This wasn’t legal confusion. It was a deliberate misuse of constitutional language to resist a lawful ruling.”

Justification:
The prosecution inserts their own interpretation as fact. Without supporting judicial testimony, this constitutes testifying as a witness and is also argumentative in nature.

 

[MegaMinerM]

In The Supreme Court of The Stratham Republic
OBJECTION: Relevance / Speculation
Date: 07/03/2025

Prosecution Quote:

“MegaMinerM [..] responded with ‘We’ll see’ and ‘Depends if I have time.’”

Justification:
The prosecution is taking informal remarks out of context and interpreting them as statements of intent. These quotes are not relevant to the determination of high crimes and are speculative when used as evidence of motive.

 

[MegaMinerM]

In The Supreme Court of The Stratham Republic
OBJECTION: Speculation / Argumentative
Date: 07/03/2025

Prosecution Quote:

“These actions are not just “poor decisions” — they are direct threats to the Republic’s constitutional order.”

Justification:
This is a conclusory, emotionally charged statement that lacks factual grounding. It is speculative and argumentative, attempting to equate delayed elections with betrayal of the Republic - a leap unsupported by evidence

 

[MegaMinerM]

Your Honor, may the Defense reserve the right to respond to the Prosecution’s Response to the Answer to Complaint once the Objections have been ruled on?