Case: Adjourned Azalea Isles v. Galavance (2025) CR 03

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Your Honor,

The deadline for responding to the defense's questions has passed by two hours. @James Carrington (ven0msaint) has neither provided responses nor indicated availability or requested an extension.

Given this, the defense requests that Mr. Carrington be held in contempt of court. If permitted by the court, the defense wishes to proceed without his responses. However, we request that it be noted on the record that the defense was unable to question this witness, and as a result, his testimony should be regarded with caution.

Given that James Carrington (ven0msaint) has failed to respond to the case as a witness in cross-examination, despite ample notification to do so, this leaves the Court will no choice but to find him in contempt of court. The Ministry of Justice is ordered to fine the witness $500 for failing to respond to a court-issued order.

The Defence has 12 hours to provide any follow-up questions to the witness who answered, Luke. If they do not have any follow-up questions, it is asked that they please indicate such to the Court.

Your Honor,

The defense has a few follow-up questions for LukeTheGreat:

1. You stated that the defendant did not offer you a settlement directly. Could you clarify what you mean by this?
2. Before the case was dismissed, did you express any concerns to government officials about the plea deal being tied to joining the party?
3. Did you specifically raise concerns with any authoritative figures in the government regarding the plea deal’s requirement to join the party?
4. If so, who?
5. You remained in the APA until you were forced out by party leaders. Why did you choose to stay after the case was dismissed?

1. As stated in my previous questioning, I was not explicitly offered the plea deal directly by Galavance but was told "...that I would be happy to hear that Spyrolix would be in contact soon to discuss a plea deal to drop the case."

2. Yes, although I was severely limited by who I could talk to as all member of the MOJ are currently expressly considered under the Minister, who was the accused, while the honourable judge had previously denied my motion and my accusations of corruption against the minister and prosecutor ruling, in my opinion given the information the judge could access at the time fairly against it but leaving me the option to re-submit the motion, that there was not sufficient evidence, in hindsight I should have taken precautions when I was contacted by Galavance and should have reported what had happened directly to the judge but as stated many times I had not the resources to continue fighting a legal battle with no legal representatives even if I had thought to inform the judge.

3. Yes I did inform members of the government at the time of my strong belief that Galavance was using his position to force me to join the party or the plea deal would be withdrawn. I also spoke about it to high members of the ruling party at the time as due to the supermajority government control they where the only people who stood to be able to do something about which and they now stand as members of the current government.

4. ChrisAkselsen01 and later on Milcrack was informed. I believe I informed another but I cannot honestly remember at the current time. I had also previously discussed the goings on at the time with Fluffywafles as well who was a member of parliament at the time but I am not sure if I directly discussed the plea deal situation with them.

5. As between the time that the court case was closed and this one was opened at which point I was removed from the party I had completed a 12 hour shift doing electronics in a darn in the cold so by the time I was back at home, rested and got back up I was kicked out, so I simply did not have the time to leave other than when I was told spy had motioned to close the case and that I was free but the presiding judge had not acknowledged the withdraw at that point in time so I did not wish to jeopardise the plea deal.

The defense has no further questions, your Honor.

The Prosecution has 48 hours to present their closing statement.

CLOSING STATEMENT
Your Honour,
The key facts of this case are uncontested. The law is clear. The defendant, Galavance, stands guilty of abusing their power to target political opponents, selectively enforcing the law to protect a political ally, and extorting political allegiance in exchange for dropping charges.

Galavance personally initiated an investigation into Wetc, Luke, and Milkcrack, with the clear intent to disbar and suspend them from office. They and High Command were directly involved in filing charges, seeking the disbarment of Fluffywaafelz and Luke—without ever providing a single legal argument for their actions.
Exhibits A, B and C

After which, Galavance lied about their involvement and gave evasive answers when questioned.

By using their authority as MOJ minister to initiate investigations against political opponents with the express purpose of suspending and disbarring them, without any legal justification, Galavance acted outside of the law.

This was done to benefit themselves, and their political ambitions and to damage the reputation and electoral prospects of his opponents.

Therefore, by the definition of corruption:
"It shall be illegal for any person with any government job to refuse to fulfill their duty or use their position for personal gain or for the gain of a friend."

Galavance used their position for personal gain, meeting the definition of corruption. Establishing Count 1x.

While aggressively pursuing charges against Luke, Wetc, and Milkcrack, Galavance deliberately ignored clear evidence of misconduct by OverlordOfPeonys. Despite the evidence against Overlord being identical to Luke's, OverlordOfPeonys was not even charged with a crime let alone prosecuted with the intent to disbar them from running for office.

The Ministry of Justice had extensive documentation—arrest reports, pictures, testimonies—proving OverlordOfPeonys committed the same crimes on multiple occasions. Yet, no investigation was ever launched.

Galavance admitted to deprioritizing this case while prioritizing their political opponents. This is a textbook example of corruption: refusing duty to protect a friend or ally. Establishing count 2x of corruption.

The third and most overt act of corruption is that: Galavance used their power to force Luke into joining their party.

The facts are that Luke did not want to join the APA before the conversation. Galavance and Luke had a 23-minute voice chat where they discussed both the case and Luke’s potential membership. And Immediately after Luke joined the APA, the charges against him were dropped.

After which Luke himself reported this blatant corruption and abuse of power to the Prime Minister.

It is completely improper to discuss criminal charges against someone in the same context as attempting to get them to join your party. Galavance used its authority to extort political loyalty in exchange for dropping charges. That is an abuse of power of the highest order.

There can be no doubt, that Luke was persuaded to join the APA only to have their charges dropped. There can be no doubt that Galavance knew that dropping Luke's charges would impact his decision to join the APA, otherwise he would not have discussed it.

Therefore Galavance used his position, to benefit themselves and their political party contrary to the law.

The law does not require proving intent—only that the acts themselves took place. But even if intent were necessary, Galavance’s actions leave no doubt. They deliberately misused their office, protected their allies, and extorted their opponents. Their repeated misconduct proves their clear intent to exploit their position for personal and political gain.

These actions, together also meet the definition of treason and would ask the court to find Galavance guilty of that.


Conclusion, Your Honour, the evidence is overwhelming. Galavance is guilty of three counts of corruption.

Each of these offences is a serious violation of public trust. Each independently meets the legal definition of corruption. Taken together, they paint a picture of a Minister who believed their power placed them above the law.

But no one is above the law. And today, justice must be served.
Galavance is guilty.

Thank you for your closing statement. The Defendant has 48 hours to present his closing statement.

Your Honor,
I begin by quoting the prosecution: "The law is clear." At least on this, we can agree.

For the past 30 days, the prosecution has built its case on assumptions, filing a complaint full of speculation. Despite the defense repeatedly disproving their claims, they persisted until their closing statement.

To conclude this case, the defense presents undeniable facts, supported by evidence, to put these baseless accusations to rest once and for all.

1 No Abuse of Power - All investigations were lawful
Investigations into Wetc, LukeTheGreat, and MilkCrack were initiated based on the evidence presented in Exhibits E, J, and K, respectively. All of this evidence was lawfully obtained, and the prosecution has failed to provide evidence to the contrary. The defendant has testified under oath that each investigation was based on valid evidence and that there was no strategizing aimed at disbarring political opponents. This testimony was further corroborated by Nanicholls.

Naturally, as Minister of Justice, the defendant had the authority to initiate these investigations, as they were legitimate criminal matters.

2 Selective Prosecution – False Equivalence
It is absurd to assume all evidence in these cases is identical. Each case is handled independently, and the prosecution has failed to prove that the evidence against LukeTheGreat and OverlordOfPeonys is the same. Furthermore, OverlordOfPeonys has not been declared innocent, as the statute of limitations still allows for their arrest.

The prosecution claims that 'deprioritizing' a case is the 'textbook definition of corruption.' However, Criminal Code Section 2.4 defines corruption as 'refusing to fulfill one's duty' or using a position for personal gain. Prioritizing cases due to an understaffed department is not corruption—it is necessary governance.

Finally, the defense rejects the term 'political opponents' in reference to the defendant’s actions. As the defendant testified: 'Yes, I discussed suspensions, but regardless of political preference or position.'

3. No coercion– LukeTheGreat’s Decision Was Voluntary
The prosecution points to LukeTheGreat's belief that joining the party would lead to his case being dropped. But belief is not fact. Both the defendant and LukeTheGreat testified that no explicit offers were made.


The prosecution presents no evidence beyond coincidental timing. The defense acknowledges LukeTheGreat’s feelings of pressure but maintains that the defendant was unaware of this—no concerns were ever communicated. Even those with the authority to question him failed to do so, instead rushing to file a lawsuit. The defendant cannot be held accountable for an assumption he neither knew of nor acted upon.

4. No Corruption, No Treason, No Crime
The prosecution insists that intent is irrelevant, yet their entire case depends on claims of deliberate misconduct—without proof.

But without clear, indisputable proof of these deliberate acts, their case collapses.

• There was no abuse of power—only legal investigations.
• There was no selective prosecution—only prioritization.
• There was no coercion—only circumstantial timing.

To claim treason is outright absurd. Treason is the highest crime against the state, involving betrayal, espionage, or acts of war. Political disputes and investigative decisions do not constitute treason.

Conclusion
Your Honor, to quote the prosecution once more: ‘the evidence is overwhelming.’
But the law demands more than accusations—it demands evidence. It demands that guilt be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution has failed to meet this standard. Their case is built on speculation, assumptions, and political theater, not concrete proof. They have presented no direct evidence of corruption, coercion, or intent.
The defendant acted fully within the scope of their duties, and there is no lawful basis for a conviction.

For these reasons, we respectfully ask the court to deliver a verdict of not guilty on all charges.

Furthermore, this trial has placed an unjustified burden on the defendant. A case built entirely on speculation, assumptions, and baseless allegations—without sustainable proof—should never have been brought to trial. Over the course of a month, the defendant has been forced to divert time, energy, and resources to defend against unfounded claims. This has resulted in significant legal fees, damage to reputation due to bad publicity, and undue personal and professional stress.

Thus, the defendant seeks compensatory damages of no less than $20,000 and up to $50,000 for legal expenses, reputational harm, and other damages incurred due to this state-sponsored act of malicious prosecution.

As we’ve seen, Your Honor, one side is based on evidence, while the other relies on speculation, accusations, and assumptions. The defendant has acted lawfully, impartially, and with integrity. The charges are unsupported by credible evidence, and we trust the court will recognize this.

Thank you, Your Honor.

The prosecution and defense have reached an agreement and the defense agreed to a plea deal.

Your Honor,

The attachment presented by the prosecution does not constitute an agreement to a plea deal. During discussions with the prosecution, the defendant was offered a plea deal, which was subsequently rejected. The prosecution then inquired about the terms under which a resolution could be reached outside of court. The defendant’s response to this inquiry is reflected in the attachment.

As evidenced in the attachment, the defendant has requested a formal offer from the prosecution, clarifying that they will not be the one to propose an offer. Rather, the defendant has merely outlined their conditions. If the prosecution extends an official offer that aligns with these terms, and the defendant agrees, they will sign the agreement.

Furthermore, I wish to emphasize that this is not a plea deal. The defendant is only willing to sign an agreement in the form of a transactional settlement. Any agreement requiring an admission of guilt will be categorically rejected.

Thank you.

It is asked that both parties avoid giving the court the run-around while it is deliberating a verdict. The Prosecution must make it clear that the Defendant agrees to these terms by having them respond to the thread; and the Defendant must avoid adding confusion to that regard.

Please also be advised that a plea deal does not necessarily constitute an admission of guilt. This deal may involve a plea of no contest or otherwise measure grounded in law. The next posts, if any, should be a clarified deal between the parties. It is asked that both avoid contradicting each other when trying to come to an out-of-court settlement.

The Prosecution and Defendant have 48 hours to come to the Court with a deal that all parties have agreed to, if any.

Before moving forward, does either party wish to present a settlement that was agreed to? The Court has a verdict prepared but I would like to ensure there is no out-of-court settlement that has already occurred. Both parties have an additional 48 hours to express whether a settlement was agreed to or if they wish to move forward to the verdict.

Your Honor, the defense has not agreed to a settlement and has no settlement to propose. The defense wishes to move forward to the verdict.

Court Verdict
Azalea Isles Criminal Court (CR)
Case No. CR-25-03
Azalea Isles v. Gala Hamilton (Galavance)

Position of the Plaintiff
1. The Prosecution alleges that the Defendant abused their position as Minister of Justice to engage in political corruption, including initiating investigations against political opponents with the intent to bar them from running in elections and selectively enforcing the law for personal and political gain.
2. The Prosecution contends that the Defendant initiated investigations into Wetc, Luke, Fluffywaafez, and MilkCrack with the explicit intent of disbarring them, bypassing lawful procedures, and using their power to harm political opponents. The Prosecution claims these actions were contrary to the public trust and an abuse of authority.
3. The Prosecution argues that Defendant's failure to pursue similar charges against OverlordOfPeonys (despite clear evidence of misconduct) constitutes selective prosecution. The Prosecution asserts that Defendant's decision to deprioritize the Overlord case while aggressively pursuing charges against others reflects political bias, which undermines the integrity of the Ministry of Justice.
4. The Prosecution suggests that the Defendant's interaction with Luke, in which he allegedly pressured Luke into joining the APA to have charges dropped, is an abuse of power and coercion. The timing of Luke’s decision to join the party and the subsequent dropping of charges is cited as evidence of political manipulation and corruption.

Position of the Defendant
1. The Defendant, Galavance, asserts that all investigations into Wetc, Luke, Fluffywaafelz, and MilkCrack were lawful and based on valid evidence. The Defence contends that Galavance, in his capacity as Minister of Justice, had the legal right to initiate these investigations, and there was no political motive or abuse of power involved.
2. The Defendant argues that the Prosecution’s claims of selective prosecution are unfounded, as the evidence against Overlordofpeonyswas not identical to that against Luke. The Defence explains that the decision to deprioritize the Overlord case was a result of resource constraints and not political bias.
3. The Defendant asserts that there is no proof of intent to misuse power, as required to establish corruption. Their alleged actions were within the scope of their legal duties, and no clear evidence of misconduct or illegal acts has been
provided.
4. The Defendant rejects the Prosecution’s claims of coercion regarding Luke’s membership in the APA, arguing that Luke’s decision was voluntary and not the result of any explicit offer or pressure from Galavance. The Defence points out that no evidence was presented to show that the Defendant coerced Luke into joining the party in exchange for dropping charges.
5. The Defendant argues that investigative decisions or political disputes do not constitute treason.

Court Opinion
1. In order to establish whether or not a crime has been committed, it is important to consider both the intent and act. Is there enough evidence to prove that the Defendant had the intent to be corrupt or commit treason? Is there enough evidence to show that the Defendant engaged in the act of corruption or treason? These are the questions the Court considered in their opinion and we find that circumstantial evidence based on assumptions only proves suspicions at this time.
2. The Court acknowledges the Prosecution’s concerns regarding the potential abuse of power by Defendant, particularly in the context of political investigations and the timing of Luke’s decision to join the APA. However, the Court finds that the Prosecution has failed to provide direct, irrefutable evidence of improper motives behind the investigations or selective prosecution. While the timing of the voice chat is incredibly concerning, the Court cannot make assumptions as to what was said in such chat without clear evidence linking its relation.
3. The Court also notes that while there may have been perceived political motivations behind the Defendant's actions, the Defence has successfully argued that the investigations were lawful and within the scope of the Minister of Justice’s duties. It has not been proven that the case against Overlordofpeonys was not identical to the others, and there is insufficient evidence to suggest intentional bias in prioritizing the cases.
4. The Court agrees that the Ministry of Justice's decision to ask that defendants be barred from government in CR 01 and CR 02 to be unjustified. Bank Robbery and Murder are not charges that include removal from office, and so the Ministry of Justice made a clear mistake in their filing. However, as for the alleged connection, the prosecutor from those cases was James Carrington (ven0msaint), a member of the same party in which the defendants were. If the prosecution were truly motivated by political desires, the Court would need to see evidence of the Justice Minister demanding the cases be filed that way, which there has been insufficient evidence of. In ven0m's answers, they claimed that it was only Spyrolix who suggested potential removal, but did not elaborate nor claim that it was a direct order it as Spyrolix was not the minister-in-charge at the time.
5. The Court finds that while Galavance’s actions may have had the appearance of a politically charged action, the Prosecution has not met the burden of proof required to establish corruption or treason beyond a reasonable doubt. The allegations, while serious, are based more on circumstantial evidence and assumptions than on concrete, proven misconduct. Constitutional law is built on innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore the principles of justice must prevail.

Decision
The Azalea Isles Criminal Court hereby rules in favour of the Defendant, declaring them not guilty of the charges put forward. While we find the actions of the Defendant to be incredibly questionable, likely justifying their eventual removal as Minister of Justice, we believe there is no proof beyond reasonable doubt to show that their actions fell under the definition of corruption and or treason.

The Court thanks both parties for their time.
Signed,
Hon. Justice Raymond West