Azalea Isles v. OCG (2024)

MrFluffy2U94 said:

Your honor,

The prosecution would like to call Elaina, the Minister of Justice as a witness to help provide some insight as to the defendants' intent.

There will be no further witnesses called as our attempts to investigate further into bank records and direct messages were either shut down by the court or were not fruitful. Additionally, the chance to question the candidates and parliament members, explicitly named by the defendant in their #ads was also denied.

However, let me be clear, the prosecution is still pursuing charges for the attempted bribery, and the incitement of corruption charges as outlined in the complaint, and detailed in the criminal code.

Furthermore, we would like to admit into evidence the following :

Spoiler: Evidence B

View attachment 52

Spoiler: Evidence C

View attachment 54

Spoiler: Evidence D

View attachment 53

Spoiler: Evidence E

View attachment 55

Click to expand...

In the Court of the Azalea Isles

Motion to Supress Evidence

Your honour,

The Defence raises objection to the evidence presented by the Prosecution. Specifically, we ask the Court to:

1. Strike "Evidence B" from the record as it poses no relevance to the case. This is a screenshot taken on April 24, prior to the election of any Parliament, prior to the opening of the city, and prior to the events of this case. The quote "who am I bribing?" was clearly a humorous remark noted by the Defendant several months ago. For the Prosecution to attempt to use this as evidence is to significantly mislead the court. In addition, such evidence goes far beyond the lawful statute of limitations.

2. Strike "Evidence D" and "Evidence E" from the record as it poses no relevance to the case. These are screenshots of advertisements made by the Progressive Coalition of Azalea (PCA). At no point did the Defendant ever express support for or connection to the PCA. The Defendant has also already provided their own evidence proving no direct message interaction with any of the six PCA MPs.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Westray said:

In the Court of the Azalea Isles

Motion to Supress Evidence

Your honour,

The Defence raises objection to the evidence presented by the Prosecution. Specifically, we ask the Court to:

1. Strike "Evidence B" from the record as it poses no relevance to the case. This is a screenshot taken on April 24, prior to the election of any Parliament, prior to the opening of the city, and prior to the events of this case. The quote "who am I bribing?" was clearly a humorous remark noted by the Defendant several months ago. For the Prosecution to attempt to use this as evidence is to significantly mislead the court. In addition, such evidence goes far beyond the lawful statute of limitations.

2. Strike "Evidence D" and "Evidence E" from the record as it poses no relevance to the case. These are screenshots of advertisements made by the Progressive Coalition of Azalea (PCA). At no point did the Defendant ever express support for or connection to the PCA. The Defendant has also already provided their own evidence proving no direct message interaction with any of the six PCA MPs.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Click to expand...

Response to Motion,

Your honor,

Evidence B is used to establish a pattern of this type of behaviors from the defendant. The defense wants to argue the defendants “intent” behind their actions, the fact that this isn’t their first time dabbling with offering bribes speaks towards that intent. Additionally, the “statute of limitations” does not apply as the Ministry of Justice is not pursuing charges based on these words, simply using them to attest to their pattern of behavior.

Furthermore, not to spoil too much of my future arguments, but pieces of evidence C, D, and E directly correlate to Exhibits A, B and C from my complaint. If you cross-reference the timestamps these posts show where the ads were previously posted. They show that the defendant has deleted and hidden evidence, as they have deleted their previous advertisements in the #ads channel. Again, the defense wants to argue their “intent” but with this evidence I simply pose the questions : Why would they delete the previous ads if they feel they did nothing wrong? Why would the defendant try to cover their tracks and delete their previous messages? If they were willing to delete messages from a public channel that are very visible whose to say they didn’t delete direct messages between themselves and the aforementioned “candidates” that can’t be easily confirmed?

Your honor this evidence IS relevant, and serves to establish a pattern of the defendant bending the rules and doing whatever they have to avoid punishment and covering their tracks.

The defense opened themselves up to this scrutiny of the defendants character when employing their defense based on the defendants “intent”.

Thank you.

After careful consideration of the motion to supress evidence, I must respectfully deny it and I will allow the evidence to be submitted.

The court acknowledges the explanation provided by the prosecution in support of its submission. However, the notion that the prosecution can 'spoil' their future arguments by explaining the evidence they are submitting is not in line with the good faith communication expected in this court.

Should it be determined that any intentional delay in disclosing evidence has occurred, or if there is an attempt to gain an unfair advantage by surprising the defence with last-minute arguments, the court will give the defence time to respond and impose sanctions if necessary.

I am present.

Alright, great. Thank you for your quick response. The prosecution has 48 hours to present their questions.

Your honor,

If it pleases the court the defense and I have negotiated a plea deal that we would like to propose as follows :

The defendant will plead guilty to one count of attempted bribery and one count of incitement of corruption. It is apparent through the investigation and the defendants testimony that no parliament members or candidates took them up on their offer. The defendant recognizes that legally they did incite corruption and did offer the bribe but maintain that they did so under the premise of uncovering corruption in our government rather than create it.

Due to the defendants acceptance of guilt and their innocent intentions, we have struck a deal to lower the fines for each offense to $1,500 per guilty fee totaling $3,000 in total fines.

Any applicable jail time is left to the court to determine what is fair and equitable.

Thank you for your time and professionalism in this case.

Does the defence agree to the plea bargain?

Your honour,

Yesterday I consulted with my client, and confirmed that the Defence has agreed to this plea deal to pay $3000 in fines accordingly.

The Defendant intended to expose corruption, but recognizes that the way he went about it may have been considered unlawful. By such regard, he admits guilt. Therefore, we feel that this deal of $3000 in fines is sufficient to ensure the law is complied with, without causing undue financial burden. As for any consideration of jail time, we feel that will be unnecessary in this matter.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

All right, thank you to all parties and the witness. The case will be dismissed.

The defendant is to pay $ 3,000 to the government within a week unless otherwise agreed upon by both parties.

As for jail time, taking into account the defendant's recognition of their wrongdoings the court finds that the fine will sufficiently deter the defendant from engaging in such acts in the future and therefore I will not impose additional jail time.

This case is dismissed.