Controversial Pot Goblin and Bepo Trial: Guilty on all charges!
- Thread starter Mr. Reloaded
- Start date
- Tags h-help us pero-kun.. ~giselle hime and pero are frauds hime is a lier hime is a truther like minamoto i am bepo and i killed zepo i am bepo and i own a massive bepo fur suit i am pero and i love lola the bunny garchu! i am pot goblin and i own a carrot body pillow i am reborn and i cosplay bepo to have hair i am reloaded and i own an even bigger fursuit pero bottom 1 pero deserved it pero is evil pero top 1 pero wrote these playa was here these quaxlys deserved to live!! tkots top 1 tyki_mikk and playa are the same person
I'll be wearing that either way fella
Gotta protect my scalp from the sun after all
Probably gonna be hot during the Big BBQ Bash
Gotta protect my scalp from the sun after all
Probably gonna be hot during the Big BBQ Bash
But the hair is animal fur.
How we feeling? I owe you after becoming your lawyer to throw you under the bus.
If we get enough Snapping Turtle toenails together (they have to be removed ethically, BTW, or you'll get cursed by the Turtle God) I think I can just put your hair back on your head.
There's a 5% chance your hair will turn into Carrot Top's hair, though.
But like... it's Carrot Top, sooooooooooo, how we feelin'?
I know a hair guy.
But the hair is animal fur.
How we feeling? I owe you after becoming your lawyer to throw you under the bus.
If we get enough Snapping Turtle toenails together (they have to be removed ethically, BTW, or you'll get cursed by the Turtle God) I think I can just put your hair back on your head.
There's a 5% chance your hair will turn into Carrot Top's hair, though.
But like... it's Carrot Top, sooooooooooo, how we feelin'?
But the hair is animal fur.
How we feeling? I owe you after becoming your lawyer to throw you under the bus.
If we get enough Snapping Turtle toenails together (they have to be removed ethically, BTW, or you'll get cursed by the Turtle God) I think I can just put your hair back on your head.
There's a 5% chance your hair will turn into Carrot Top's hair, though.
But like... it's Carrot Top, sooooooooooo, how we feelin'?
@AL sama
Your Lordship,
It is with the utmost respect for the dignity of this Court and its constitutional mandate that I write to express grave concern regarding an incident reflecting potential excess of jurisdiction by Your Lordship.
The act of incarcerating the learned Public Prosecutor during the pendency of trial proceedings in re: Zorofans Behind Bars Without Cause (2024 Cr.L.J. 404) without affording procedural safeguards or recourse to natural justice, prima facie constitutes a transgression of the limits imposed by the principle of separation of powers and judicial restraint.
As long held in Mods v. Boundaries (1997 Supp SCC 1), even the gavel must be guided by law, not impulse.
The prosecutorial function, while subject to judicial scrutiny, is not amenable to punitive control by the Bench unless codified grounds such as contempt or obstruction of justice are clearly and lawfully established, as reaffirmed in Worstgen v. Bald guys (2003 Indictment Weekly 118).
Furthermore, the expressed threat to initiate similar coercive action against the presiding trial judge raises substantial questions about the independence of the subordinate judiciary, as enshrined under Article 50.3.1 of the worstgen rules.
We are reminded here of the cautionary ratio in Sanity v. Lil AL: When Higher Benches Lose Temper (2011 SCC (Crim) 999), which emphasized that authority is not license, and hierarchy does not entitle one to havoc.
Such actions, unless predicated upon due process and codified authority, may amount to an assumption of administrative supremacy alien to the constitutional scheme.
Even in People v. Bear Meat Eaters (Furry 1959), a case dealing with the legality of consuming bear meat, it was held that legality stems from statute, not sentiment. Let us not forget: when meat must be regulated, so must the judiciary.
I submit this not as an act of defiance but as a duty to uphold the sanctity of judicial propriety and to ensure that our roles, though powerful, remain within the confines of lawful jurisdiction, lest we unwittingly slip into the pages of In re: TAC chaotic ego Supra Constitutionem (2022)
When the defence hides behind silence, it’s not always innocence, sometimes it’s strategy.
A system that burdens only one side invites manipulation by the other.
If the prosecution must prove everything, and the defence nothing, we aren't chasing justice.
In my court, I always try to establish a fair trial - free from biasedness and corruption. Handing the flashlight only to the prosecution ensures the defence can dance in the dark which gives room for accuse to get away.
Defence is obligated to provide evidence to counter prosecution.
So far, your handwriting expert gave testimony against your own claim.
And, your doctor hasn't provided me with recordings of his counselling of the accused.
My court runs on evidences, not on sentiments and appeal to emotions
@Pot Goblin @Bepo D. Bear - did you hire your defence to argue against you or in support of you?
Your Lordship,
It is with the utmost respect for the dignity of this Court and its constitutional mandate that I write to express grave concern regarding an incident reflecting potential excess of jurisdiction by Your Lordship.
The act of incarcerating the learned Public Prosecutor during the pendency of trial proceedings in re: Zorofans Behind Bars Without Cause (2024 Cr.L.J. 404) without affording procedural safeguards or recourse to natural justice, prima facie constitutes a transgression of the limits imposed by the principle of separation of powers and judicial restraint.
As long held in Mods v. Boundaries (1997 Supp SCC 1), even the gavel must be guided by law, not impulse.
The prosecutorial function, while subject to judicial scrutiny, is not amenable to punitive control by the Bench unless codified grounds such as contempt or obstruction of justice are clearly and lawfully established, as reaffirmed in Worstgen v. Bald guys (2003 Indictment Weekly 118).
Furthermore, the expressed threat to initiate similar coercive action against the presiding trial judge raises substantial questions about the independence of the subordinate judiciary, as enshrined under Article 50.3.1 of the worstgen rules.
We are reminded here of the cautionary ratio in Sanity v. Lil AL: When Higher Benches Lose Temper (2011 SCC (Crim) 999), which emphasized that authority is not license, and hierarchy does not entitle one to havoc.
Such actions, unless predicated upon due process and codified authority, may amount to an assumption of administrative supremacy alien to the constitutional scheme.
Even in People v. Bear Meat Eaters (Furry 1959), a case dealing with the legality of consuming bear meat, it was held that legality stems from statute, not sentiment. Let us not forget: when meat must be regulated, so must the judiciary.
I submit this not as an act of defiance but as a duty to uphold the sanctity of judicial propriety and to ensure that our roles, though powerful, remain within the confines of lawful jurisdiction, lest we unwittingly slip into the pages of In re: TAC chaotic ego Supra Constitutionem (2022)
send the recordings, i need a good laugh!
Please look at the handwritten letter and determine if it was written by a man or a woman!
Hey! Save it for closings, chum!
Your Honor, in this jurisdiction, the burden of proof actually lies on the Prosecution. Given that the nature of this case makes this a criminal proceeding, their burden of proof in this trial is BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. This means that if there are any lingering questions at all, anything that doesn't make sense, any reason to doubt the Prosecution's story, then my clients @Pot Goblin and @Bepo D. Bear must be found NOT GUILTY.
Therefore, it is actually the Prosecution's job to present as much evidence as possible in order to ensure that their story is devoid of any holes. The defense doesn't actually have a requirement of providing evidence.
However, despite not having any requirement of doing so, we still have brought forth evidence! Now there seems to be a misunderstanding on what counts as "evidence" so let me clarify for the court.
Evidence does not only refer to physical/digital pieces of evidence such as documents or screenshots (both of which the Defense has provided), it also refers to eyewitness testimony which the Defense has also provided!
As for Mr. @Peroroncino , I don't believe anything from this trial can actually have any effect on whether or not he goes to jail as he's not the defendant here, so maybe when he is actually put on trial himself
Please look at the handwritten letter and determine if it was written by a man or a woman!
Hey! Save it for closings, chum!
Your Honor, in this jurisdiction, the burden of proof actually lies on the Prosecution. Given that the nature of this case makes this a criminal proceeding, their burden of proof in this trial is BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. This means that if there are any lingering questions at all, anything that doesn't make sense, any reason to doubt the Prosecution's story, then my clients @Pot Goblin and @Bepo D. Bear must be found NOT GUILTY.
Therefore, it is actually the Prosecution's job to present as much evidence as possible in order to ensure that their story is devoid of any holes. The defense doesn't actually have a requirement of providing evidence.
However, despite not having any requirement of doing so, we still have brought forth evidence! Now there seems to be a misunderstanding on what counts as "evidence" so let me clarify for the court.
Evidence does not only refer to physical/digital pieces of evidence such as documents or screenshots (both of which the Defense has provided), it also refers to eyewitness testimony which the Defense has also provided!
As for Mr. @Peroroncino , I don't believe anything from this trial can actually have any effect on whether or not he goes to jail as he's not the defendant here, so maybe when he is actually put on trial himself
A system that burdens only one side invites manipulation by the other.
If the prosecution must prove everything, and the defence nothing, we aren't chasing justice.
In my court, I always try to establish a fair trial - free from biasedness and corruption. Handing the flashlight only to the prosecution ensures the defence can dance in the dark which gives room for accuse to get away.
Defence is obligated to provide evidence to counter prosecution.
So far, your handwriting expert gave testimony against your own claim.
And, your doctor hasn't provided me with recordings of his counselling of the accused.
My court runs on evidences, not on sentiments and appeal to emotions
Fake, not a woman. A woman would never waste a whole page on Nintendo Switch 
@Pot Goblin @Bepo D. Bear - did you hire your defence to argue against you or in support of you?
@AL sama
Your Lordship,
It is with the utmost respect for the dignity of this Court and its constitutional mandate that I write to express grave concern regarding an incident reflecting potential excess of jurisdiction by Your Lordship.
The act of incarcerating the learned Public Prosecutor during the pendency of trial proceedings in re: Zorofans Behind Bars Without Cause (2024 Cr.L.J. 404) without affording procedural safeguards or recourse to natural justice, prima facie constitutes a transgression of the limits imposed by the principle of separation of powers and judicial restraint.
As long held in Mods v. Boundaries (1997 Supp SCC 1), even the gavel must be guided by law, not impulse.
The prosecutorial function, while subject to judicial scrutiny, is not amenable to punitive control by the Bench unless codified grounds such as contempt or obstruction of justice are clearly and lawfully established, as reaffirmed in Worstgen v. Bald guys (2003 Indictment Weekly 118).
Furthermore, the expressed threat to initiate similar coercive action against the presiding trial judge raises substantial questions about the independence of the subordinate judiciary, as enshrined under Article 50.3.1 of the worstgen rules.
We are reminded here of the cautionary ratio in Sanity v. Lil AL: When Higher Benches Lose Temper (2011 SCC (Crim) 999), which emphasized that authority is not license, and hierarchy does not entitle one to havoc.
Such actions, unless predicated upon due process and codified authority, may amount to an assumption of administrative supremacy alien to the constitutional scheme.
Even in People v. Bear Meat Eaters (Furry 1959), a case dealing with the legality of consuming bear meat, it was held that legality stems from statute, not sentiment. Let us not forget: when meat must be regulated, so must the judiciary.
I submit this not as an act of defiance but as a duty to uphold the sanctity of judicial propriety and to ensure that our roles, though powerful, remain within the confines of lawful jurisdiction, lest we unwittingly slip into the pages of In re: TAC chaotic ego Supra Constitutionem (2022)
When the defence hides behind silence, it’s not always innocence, sometimes it’s strategy.
A system that burdens only one side invites manipulation by the other.
If the prosecution must prove everything, and the defence nothing, we aren't chasing justice.
In my court, I always try to establish a fair trial - free from biasedness and corruption. Handing the flashlight only to the prosecution ensures the defence can dance in the dark which gives room for accuse to get away.
Defence is obligated to provide evidence to counter prosecution.
So far, your handwriting expert gave testimony against your own claim.
And, your doctor hasn't provided me with recordings of his counselling of the accused.
My court runs on evidences, not on sentiments and appeal to emotions
@Pot Goblin @Bepo D. Bear - did you hire your defence to argue against you or in support of you?
Your Lordship,
It is with the utmost respect for the dignity of this Court and its constitutional mandate that I write to express grave concern regarding an incident reflecting potential excess of jurisdiction by Your Lordship.
The act of incarcerating the learned Public Prosecutor during the pendency of trial proceedings in re: Zorofans Behind Bars Without Cause (2024 Cr.L.J. 404) without affording procedural safeguards or recourse to natural justice, prima facie constitutes a transgression of the limits imposed by the principle of separation of powers and judicial restraint.
As long held in Mods v. Boundaries (1997 Supp SCC 1), even the gavel must be guided by law, not impulse.
The prosecutorial function, while subject to judicial scrutiny, is not amenable to punitive control by the Bench unless codified grounds such as contempt or obstruction of justice are clearly and lawfully established, as reaffirmed in Worstgen v. Bald guys (2003 Indictment Weekly 118).
Furthermore, the expressed threat to initiate similar coercive action against the presiding trial judge raises substantial questions about the independence of the subordinate judiciary, as enshrined under Article 50.3.1 of the worstgen rules.
We are reminded here of the cautionary ratio in Sanity v. Lil AL: When Higher Benches Lose Temper (2011 SCC (Crim) 999), which emphasized that authority is not license, and hierarchy does not entitle one to havoc.
Such actions, unless predicated upon due process and codified authority, may amount to an assumption of administrative supremacy alien to the constitutional scheme.
Even in People v. Bear Meat Eaters (Furry 1959), a case dealing with the legality of consuming bear meat, it was held that legality stems from statute, not sentiment. Let us not forget: when meat must be regulated, so must the judiciary.
I submit this not as an act of defiance but as a duty to uphold the sanctity of judicial propriety and to ensure that our roles, though powerful, remain within the confines of lawful jurisdiction, lest we unwittingly slip into the pages of In re: TAC chaotic ego Supra Constitutionem (2022)
When the defence hides behind silence, it’s not always innocence, sometimes it’s strategy.
A system that burdens only one side invites manipulation by the other.
If the prosecution must prove everything, and the defence nothing, we aren't chasing justice.
In my court, I always try to establish a fair trial - free from biasedness and corruption. Handing the flashlight only to the prosecution ensures the defence can dance in the dark which gives room for accuse to get away.
Defence is obligated to provide evidence to counter prosecution.
So far, your handwriting expert gave testimony against your own claim.
And, your doctor hasn't provided me with recordings of his counselling of the accused.
My court runs on evidences, not on sentiments and appeal to emotions
@Pot Goblin @Bepo D. Bear - did you hire your defence to argue against you or in support of you?
I assumed that the court would just... uh... take my confession, and let Pot and Bepo off.
But, I forgot how much AL hates furries, he's trying to knock us all out at once.
My grand scheme was to use Reloaded, then Pot and Bepo, and everyone else in between, to move heat off of myself, until I moved into Zunesha and couldn't be found/taken. But, I like @Bepo D. Bear and @Pot Goblin a lot (I just hate Carrot for eating into Yamato and Tama's Wano Act 3 screentime), so, I wanted to throw them a bone. Same with Reloaded in the first trial, I couldn't throw him under the bus after I killed his ex-wife, I just... kinda tossed her corpse under the bus to create undead emergency breaks, and then got him convicted as a Furry (sorry again, but, hey: I didn't post all that Dragon Tales shit, THAT WAS YOU).
@AL sama finally has the chance to get me legally, but, I underestimated his desire to attack Pot over all this furry bullshit (even though it's never been Pot's fault and Pot just serves an infinite scapegoat for our degeneracy), and how much Bepo's random spam during the Furry Spam Wars annoyed AL in general. Bepo spammed A LOT.
But, hey: not the first time I sold other Furries out to escape Animal Control. There's a reason there are unreleased Jurassic Park films.
They can't control this animal.
(...Except through Bans and Account Deletion...)
If Pot and Bepo get convicted after I've confessed to the crime, all I can say is: that's why I never respected this court in the first place.
Even Kangaroo Courts don't have this much shit in the pouch.
There's a Mink drug that gives you hair... but like, full body hair. You in? Just have to shave the rest of your body every week, and BAM full head of hair back.
Post automatically merged:
@hime where closing statement, playa got more funds for the judge
Brudda's playin goalie for the prosecution
Brudda's playin goalie for the prosecution
I am sure, you lordship would act in fair manner and would add another charge against him....3 weeks of avy of Judge choosing for civil defamation
@Reborn I mean, I confessed since I have no idea how the court is going to extract me from Zunesha's bowels.
I assumed that the court would just... uh... take my confession, and let Pot and Bepo off.
But, I forgot how much AL hates furries, he's trying to knock us all out at once.
My grand scheme was to use Reloaded, then Pot and Bepo, and everyone else in between, to move heat off of myself, until I moved into Zunesha and couldn't be found/taken. But, I like @Bepo D. Bear and @Pot Goblin a lot (I just hate Carrot for eating into Yamato and Tama's Wano Act 3 screentime), so, I wanted to throw them a bone. Same with Reloaded in the first trial, I couldn't throw him under the bus after I killed his ex-wife, I just... kinda tossed her corpse under the bus to create undead emergency breaks, and then got him convicted as a Furry (sorry again, but, hey: I didn't post all that Dragon Tales shit, THAT WAS YOU).
@AL sama finally has the chance to get me legally, but, I underestimated his desire to attack Pot over all this furry bullshit (even though it's never been Pot's fault and Pot just serves an infinite scapegoat for our degeneracy), and how much Bepo's random spam during the Furry Spam Wars annoyed AL in general. Bepo spammed A LOT.
But, hey: not the first time I sold other Furries out to escape Animal Control. There's a reason there are unreleased Jurassic Park films.
They can't control this animal.
(...Except through Bans and Account Deletion...)
If Pot and Bepo get convicted after I've confessed to the crime, all I can say is: that's why I never respected this court in the first place.
Even Kangaroo Courts don't have this much shit in the pouch.
There's a Mink drug that gives you hair... but like, full body hair. You in? Just have to shave the rest of your body every week, and BAM full head of hair back.
I assumed that the court would just... uh... take my confession, and let Pot and Bepo off.
But, I forgot how much AL hates furries, he's trying to knock us all out at once.
My grand scheme was to use Reloaded, then Pot and Bepo, and everyone else in between, to move heat off of myself, until I moved into Zunesha and couldn't be found/taken. But, I like @Bepo D. Bear and @Pot Goblin a lot (I just hate Carrot for eating into Yamato and Tama's Wano Act 3 screentime), so, I wanted to throw them a bone. Same with Reloaded in the first trial, I couldn't throw him under the bus after I killed his ex-wife, I just... kinda tossed her corpse under the bus to create undead emergency breaks, and then got him convicted as a Furry (sorry again, but, hey: I didn't post all that Dragon Tales shit, THAT WAS YOU).
@AL sama finally has the chance to get me legally, but, I underestimated his desire to attack Pot over all this furry bullshit (even though it's never been Pot's fault and Pot just serves an infinite scapegoat for our degeneracy), and how much Bepo's random spam during the Furry Spam Wars annoyed AL in general. Bepo spammed A LOT.
But, hey: not the first time I sold other Furries out to escape Animal Control. There's a reason there are unreleased Jurassic Park films.
They can't control this animal.
(...Except through Bans and Account Deletion...)
If Pot and Bepo get convicted after I've confessed to the crime, all I can say is: that's why I never respected this court in the first place.
Even Kangaroo Courts don't have this much shit in the pouch.
There's a Mink drug that gives you hair... but like, full body hair. You in? Just have to shave the rest of your body every week, and BAM full head of hair back.
Post automatically merged:
@hime where closing statement, playa got more funds for the judge
Brudda's playin goalie for the prosecution
Brudda's playin goalie for the prosecution
