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
Us folically challenged need to stick together fella, what would @MonsterZoro think
Do you not want to go to my Big BBQ Bash later this summer?
Do you not want to go to my Big BBQ Bash later this summer?
I don't know when @Pot Goblin Big BBQ Bash starts, but the worstgen Version starts now.
The food I cook:
- conejos
- bears
Great good meat.
Taste sooo good.
@Reborn, I heard Bear meat brings back hairs.
The food I cook:
- conejos
- bears
Great good meat.
Taste sooo good.
@Reborn, I heard Bear meat brings back hairs.
Let's cook him first 🤤
Having white bear hair >>> having shiny dome
So
So
In light of the current state of proceedings, I respectfully submit that we are now at a natural and necessary point to conclude this case.
The defense(@hime ) has had ample opportunity to present evidence, rebut allegations, and raise counterclaims. Yet, despite repeated invitations to do so, they have failed to provide a single substantiated piece of evidence in their client's favor. Instead, we’ve been met with vague emotional appeals, intoxicated witnesses, and irrelevant diversions — all of which may be entertaining, but none of which meet the standard of legal scrutiny.
We’ve provided:
- Concrete digital proof of illegal behavior by @Bepo D. Bear.
- Documented contradictions and credibility issues in the statements of defense witnesses, including @hime.
- And most importantly, no credible challenge to any of the core claims we have laid out.
Therefore, unless the defense is suddenly in possession of actual, admissible evidence — which until now has been conspicuously absent — I propose we move forward to closing statements and allow the court to deliver its judgment.
Delaying justice in the absence of meaningful contribution is not diligence — it is distraction.
I am prepared to deliver my closing argument immediately, should the court agree.
— Tyki Mikk&Sentinel
How about let my Lawyers respond first
What's the rush fella? Can't afford to keep this case going?
What's the rush fella? Can't afford to keep this case going?
Oh Conejo, darling, the only thing slower than your legal team’s response is your ability to recognize when the walls are closing in.
We’ve waited patiently, while your side shuffled around like headless Torchics, producing neither evidence nor substance. And now, instead of addressing the case, you hide behind your so-called lawyers plural, as if quantity might one day evolve into quality.
Are we to expect another doctor who writes psychiatric reports on scented napkins? Or perhaps Ms. Hime, freshly recovered from challenging her mirror to a sake-drinking contest?
Let’s be honest: this isn’t about “rushing” this is about dignity. Every extra minute granted to your defense is another brutal assault on logic, reason, and courtroom decorum.
But by all means, take your time. We’re enjoying the performance. Your defense team couldn’t spell reasonable doubt if it were tattooed on your ears.
We’ve waited patiently, while your side shuffled around like headless Torchics, producing neither evidence nor substance. And now, instead of addressing the case, you hide behind your so-called lawyers plural, as if quantity might one day evolve into quality.
Are we to expect another doctor who writes psychiatric reports on scented napkins? Or perhaps Ms. Hime, freshly recovered from challenging her mirror to a sake-drinking contest?
Let’s be honest: this isn’t about “rushing” this is about dignity. Every extra minute granted to your defense is another brutal assault on logic, reason, and courtroom decorum.
But by all means, take your time. We’re enjoying the performance. Your defense team couldn’t spell reasonable doubt if it were tattooed on your ears.
Oh Conejo, darling, the only thing slower than your legal team’s response is your ability to recognize when the walls are closing in.
We’ve waited patiently, while your side shuffled around like headless Torchics, producing neither evidence nor substance. And now, instead of addressing the case, you hide behind your so-called lawyers plural, as if quantity might one day evolve into quality.
Are we to expect another doctor who writes psychiatric reports on scented napkins? Or perhaps Ms. Hime, freshly recovered from challenging her mirror to a sake-drinking contest?
Let’s be honest: this isn’t about “rushing” this is about dignity. Every extra minute granted to your defense is another brutal assault on logic, reason, and courtroom decorum.
But by all means, take your time. We’re enjoying the performance. Your defense team couldn’t spell reasonable doubt if it were tattooed on your ears.
We’ve waited patiently, while your side shuffled around like headless Torchics, producing neither evidence nor substance. And now, instead of addressing the case, you hide behind your so-called lawyers plural, as if quantity might one day evolve into quality.
Are we to expect another doctor who writes psychiatric reports on scented napkins? Or perhaps Ms. Hime, freshly recovered from challenging her mirror to a sake-drinking contest?
Let’s be honest: this isn’t about “rushing” this is about dignity. Every extra minute granted to your defense is another brutal assault on logic, reason, and courtroom decorum.
But by all means, take your time. We’re enjoying the performance. Your defense team couldn’t spell reasonable doubt if it were tattooed on your ears.
Then you know I never go down without a fight
@hime stop it or you won't get to hear my beautiful voice doing an even more beautiful impression
What do you need me for 
@Reborn @hime
@Yoho
@Jaguark101
@Kerkovian
@Devilbat
@CoC: Color of Clowns
@Pot Goblin @Bepo D. Bear @Mr. Reloaded
@TheKnightOfTheSea
@Ali v2
@AL sama
Your Honor, esteemed members of the court,
While we respect the witness’s theatrical bedside manner and heartfelt concern for sofa logistics, the Prosecution must now address the glaring inconsistencies and convenient loopholes in his testimony.
1. Emotional Bias Over Clinical Neutrality
The witness proudly admits to being “poetic” and “emotional” when treating patients. While charming, this compromises his objectivity. Psychiatry is a science—not a platform for literary flair. Diagnoses must be made from data, not from half an ass cheek.
2. Confirmation Bias in Diagnosis
He claims to be the “second opinion” supporting a PTSD diagnosis. Yet, we have not been presented with the first opinion, nor has the court been given any verifiable documentation of the initial diagnosis, practitioner identity, or medical process. In legal terms: this is hearsay stacked on top of self-validation.
3. Comedy Trial Evidence
The defense leans heavily on a document first presented during a comedy trial. The witness excuses this by referencing "budget issues" and "Chinese tariffs"—irrelevant to the authenticity of a clinical report. If you can’t distinguish courtroom satire from medical testimony, how can we trust your assessment of psychological trauma?
4. Selective Citation Without Application
While systemic desensitization is a real technique, the witness failed to provide any logs, notes, or clinical charts showing its use on Mr. Goblin. Quoting PubMed does not equate to applying its methods. As of now, the entire process sounds improvised and undocumented.
5. Weak Causal Link to Criminal Behavior
Finally, the doctor admits he cannot be certain that PTSD caused Mr. Goblin’s actions. This makes his testimony speculative at best, and inadmissible at worst. Psychiatry does not function on “maybe.” The burden of proof here lies not in compassion, but in concrete correlation between diagnosis and the accused’s behavior.
We ask the court to treat this testimony not as medical fact, but as theatrical mitigation disguised as expert analysis. Compassion does not substitute due process.
First Part
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Your Honor, esteemed members of the court,
Before we allow emotional anecdotes or inebriated distractions to obscure the truth, the defense would like to clarify a few critical matters regarding both the credibility of @hime and the alleged victimhood of @Bepo D. Bear.
I. The Case of Bepo D. Bear – A Habitual Violator of Pokémon Ethics
While the prosecution attempts to paint @Bepo D. Bear as some elusive, misunderstood figure, the facts show otherwise. Let us review:
So, if we are to question credibility, let us not ignore the defendant's digital fingerprints at the scene of the crime.
II. On the Witness Hime – Unfit Testimony Due to Self-Inflicted Intoxication
It has come to our attention — and I quote — that @hime became incapacitated after challenging her own reflection to a drinking contest.
This is not satire; it is the reality of our witness’ current state, rendering her incapable of objective reasoning.
Now, Hime has previously attempted to redirect the courtroom’s attention toward alleged Pokémon abuse committed by @Peroroncino. Let us be perfectly clear:
III. On Sentimental Letters and Nintendo Switches
The handwritten letter from Mrs. Reloaded is touching. However, it cannot be taken as clinical proof of PTSD, nor can it be used to excuse behavior by appealing to emotion. No matter how heartfelt a bequest involving a Nintendo Switch 2 may be, it does not substitute for evidence.
This courtroom operates on logic and facts — not poetry and pixels.
IV. Final Considerations
Let us return the courtroom to reason.
Thank you, Your Honor.
— Counsel for the Defense
Tyki Mikk&Sentinel
@Yoho
@Jaguark101
@Kerkovian
@Devilbat
@CoC: Color of Clowns
@Pot Goblin @Bepo D. Bear @Mr. Reloaded
@TheKnightOfTheSea
@Ali v2
@AL sama
Your Honor, esteemed members of the court,
While we respect the witness’s theatrical bedside manner and heartfelt concern for sofa logistics, the Prosecution must now address the glaring inconsistencies and convenient loopholes in his testimony.
1. Emotional Bias Over Clinical Neutrality
The witness proudly admits to being “poetic” and “emotional” when treating patients. While charming, this compromises his objectivity. Psychiatry is a science—not a platform for literary flair. Diagnoses must be made from data, not from half an ass cheek.
2. Confirmation Bias in Diagnosis
He claims to be the “second opinion” supporting a PTSD diagnosis. Yet, we have not been presented with the first opinion, nor has the court been given any verifiable documentation of the initial diagnosis, practitioner identity, or medical process. In legal terms: this is hearsay stacked on top of self-validation.
3. Comedy Trial Evidence
The defense leans heavily on a document first presented during a comedy trial. The witness excuses this by referencing "budget issues" and "Chinese tariffs"—irrelevant to the authenticity of a clinical report. If you can’t distinguish courtroom satire from medical testimony, how can we trust your assessment of psychological trauma?
4. Selective Citation Without Application
While systemic desensitization is a real technique, the witness failed to provide any logs, notes, or clinical charts showing its use on Mr. Goblin. Quoting PubMed does not equate to applying its methods. As of now, the entire process sounds improvised and undocumented.
5. Weak Causal Link to Criminal Behavior
Finally, the doctor admits he cannot be certain that PTSD caused Mr. Goblin’s actions. This makes his testimony speculative at best, and inadmissible at worst. Psychiatry does not function on “maybe.” The burden of proof here lies not in compassion, but in concrete correlation between diagnosis and the accused’s behavior.
We ask the court to treat this testimony not as medical fact, but as theatrical mitigation disguised as expert analysis. Compassion does not substitute due process.
First Part
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Your Honor, esteemed members of the court,
Before we allow emotional anecdotes or inebriated distractions to obscure the truth, the defense would like to clarify a few critical matters regarding both the credibility of @hime and the alleged victimhood of @Bepo D. Bear.
I. The Case of Bepo D. Bear – A Habitual Violator of Pokémon Ethics
While the prosecution attempts to paint @Bepo D. Bear as some elusive, misunderstood figure, the facts show otherwise. Let us review:
- Tampering and Hacking: The evidence presented from the PKHeX interface clearly shows manipulated stats, illegal Pokémon creation, and falsified in-game records. This isn't speculation — it's irrefutable digital proof. Any seasoned trainer will confirm:
- Maxed BP and coins,
- “Last Saved” and “Game Started” timestamps manually matched,
- Unnatural experience levels and item placements.
This is not gameplay — this is fabrication.
- Theft of a Mewtwo: A second piece of evidence, which the court already holds on record, shows Bepo stealing a Mewtwo from another community member.
That isn’t simply against game ethics — it’s symbolic of a character willing to deceive for personal gain.
So, if we are to question credibility, let us not ignore the defendant's digital fingerprints at the scene of the crime.
II. On the Witness Hime – Unfit Testimony Due to Self-Inflicted Intoxication
It has come to our attention — and I quote — that @hime became incapacitated after challenging her own reflection to a drinking contest.
This is not satire; it is the reality of our witness’ current state, rendering her incapable of objective reasoning.
Now, Hime has previously attempted to redirect the courtroom’s attention toward alleged Pokémon abuse committed by @Peroroncino. Let us be perfectly clear:
- No testimony, no screenshot, no log, nor witness supports this.
- Not a single verified claim has been submitted that even remotely supports this accusation.
It is nothing more than a desperate deflection — perhaps made under the influence — intended to discredit a clean record.
III. On Sentimental Letters and Nintendo Switches
The handwritten letter from Mrs. Reloaded is touching. However, it cannot be taken as clinical proof of PTSD, nor can it be used to excuse behavior by appealing to emotion. No matter how heartfelt a bequest involving a Nintendo Switch 2 may be, it does not substitute for evidence.
This courtroom operates on logic and facts — not poetry and pixels.
IV. Final Considerations
- The defense urges the court to consider the reliability of sources, not their popularity.
- @Bepo D. Bear has a documented history of unethical digital conduct.
- @Hime’s accusations stem from a position of emotional instability and lack factual grounding.
- Meanwhile, @Peroroncino remains untouched by evidence — his record, clean; his name, dragged without justification.
Let us return the courtroom to reason.
Thank you, Your Honor.
— Counsel for the Defense
Tyki Mikk&Sentinel
Post automatically merged:
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
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
Your Honor,
While the Defense attempts to recite textbook definitions of burden of proof, let’s not allow theatrics to mask the glaring void of their case.
Yes the burden of proof lies with the Prosecution. That’s precisely why we have submitted verified documents, screenshots, and witnesses including specialists to build a coherent timeline, with motive, method, and psychological profiles.
What has the Defense done in return?
- A whimsical psychiatric letter written on what might as well have been a scented napkin
- A witness whose entire testimony reads like a rejected chapter of a teen drama
- A confusing attempt to drag @Peroroncino into this case, as if that deflection strategy somehow alleviates the criminal behavior of Pot Goblin and Bepo
Let us be clear: yes, testimony is evidence, but testimony without credibility is not. A defense team citing drunken mirror duels and carpet-staining therapy sessions does not meet the standard of reasonable doubt. It meets the standard of reasonable embarrassment.
If this court is expected to weigh serious charges on such flimsy “evidence,” then we might as well hand Conejo a golden gavel and let him judge the next case from his burrow.
Which means:
@Bepo D. Bear @Pot Goblin
