Now comes citylion, representing the plaintiff WPLibrar2.

Preamble:

The plaintiff’s reasoning for the case will now be presented and explained. StateApparatus made a deal with WPLibrar2 on March 4th UTC. In this deal StateApparatus asks WPLibrar2 is he would like to make a contract where WPLibrar2 gives StateApparatus an “aye” on his bill, and in return StateApparatus gives WPLibrar2 the gift of the hopper plot after “the vote goes through” for State’s bill on adding text to the constitution. My client WPLibrar2 was quick to clarify on the deal: “Alright, that's a contract. For my aye vote I get the hopper. Thanks.” Therefore, in return for WPLibrar2’s “Aye” the plot would become WPLibrar2’s after the expiration of the voting period of the bill. 1 2 However, StateApparatus has still not fulfilled his end of the contract. Instead, he has designed a disturbing scheme to scam WPLibrar2 out of the plot, and according to the contract WPLibrar2 is the current owner of the plot. In fact, StateApparatus has already admitted that his handling of the contract would be considered “violating a contract”. Even though WPLibrar2 is the current owner of the plot, StateApparatus continues to threaten my client, and he falsely claims that the contract was ”canceled” before the voting period ended. Furthermore, StateApparatus has now started to destroy WPLibrar2’s plot without his consent. Hence, the rightful owner of the property (WPLibrar2) has been forced to settle this case in a courtroom.

Statement of Charges:

We charge StateApparatus with 200.1 Theft of Property (a., b., and c.) as well as 100.01 First-Degree Intentional Griefing (a.).

200.1 Theft of Property

1. Offenses

a. Intentionally takes and carries away, transfers, conceals, or retains possession of property of another without the other's consent and with intent to deprive the owner of possession of such property.

b. Obtains property of another person by intentionally deceiving the person with a false representation which is known to be false, made with intent to defraud, and which does defraud the person to whom it is made. "False representation" includes a promise made with intent not to perform it if it is a part of a false and fraudulent scheme. This includes an abuse of the dereliction system.

c. The coercion by force, threat of force, fraud, payment or contracting by promise of payment or reimbursement any party with the goal of causing the above shall be prosecuted as the same

100.01 First-Degree Intentional Griefing

1. Offenses

a. Except as provided in subsection 2, the willful destruction of property with the intent to cause destruction

In violation of 100.01 (a.)

StateApparatus has started destructing and therefore griefing WPLibrar2’s hopper plot without WPLibrar2’s consent. 5 6

In violation of 200.1 (a.)

StateApparatus claims that the property is his (and not WPLibrar2’s). 3 4 5 StateApparatus does not have WPLibrar2’s consent for claiming owernship of the hopper plot, or otherwise working on it in any way.

In violation of 200.1 (b.)

StateApparatus made a deal with my client. According to the contract, WPLibrar2 would become owner of the plot after the voting period for state’s bill. 1 2 It is now past the end of the voting period. My client is the owner of the hopper plot (in accord with the contract). Yet, StateApparatus maintains his fraudulent claims on the plot, and constructed a mirage to fool my client.8 Watch how State continually and vaguely points to a “cancellation” without referencing any post or comment. StateApparatus’s claiming of the hopper plot is clearly a malicious act to attempt to scam my client out of his rightful property.

In violation of 200.1 (c.)

StateApparatus has threatened my client WPLibrar2 with pearling in an effort to coerce him out of the plot. 7. This is a clear violation of 200.1 because according to the contract, at this time of the posting WPLibrar2 was already the owner of the plot.

Assessing the validity of State’s cancellation of the contract

StateApparatus may claim that he cancelled the contract, this is part of his fraudulent scheme to scam the owner (WPLibrar2) out of the hopper plot. StateApparatus never explicitly informed or notified WPLibrar2 that the contract was cancelled or voided before the vote ended, when the vote ended StateApparatus was in wrongful possession of the plot, and he remains in wrongful possession of my client’s plot. Said bill was posted on Sunday March 4th 02:26:21 UTC 2018. Therefore bill voting ended March 6th 02:26:21 UTC 2018 48 hours later according to the constitution. 8. Which means at this time StateApparatus was no longer the owner of the plot as agreed upon in the contract. Therefore he no longer had the right to declare the property contract void on March 7th UTC 2018 as he did because he had already been obligated to fulfill the contract prior on March 6th. .9 7 On March 7th UTC 2018 WPLibrar2 was already the owner of the plot, therefore it is impossible that StateApparatus could have ended the contract. The defendant failed to comply with the contract as agreed between both parties

Trial Request Closing Statements

I would firstly like to note that a verdict has not yet been reached on this case in any previous courtroom trials between my client and State. My client and I ask that StateApparatus officially transfers the plot to WPLibrar2 with haste, that all destruction of the plot is reverted as well as adequately paid for through reparations, and that StateApparatus serves the maximum amount of time for all charges he is found guilty of. I find it stunning that this injustice of a blatant land grab by StateApparatus has been allowed up until now. Your honor, I believe you will find that this document clearly outlines the merits of WPLibrar2 and StateApparatus’s contract, and shows that StateApparatus has violated the contract under fraudulent pretenses to steal the hopper plot from WPLibrar2, who has officially owned the plot since the voting period ended under contract.