Case: Pending Azalea Isles v. fluffywaafelz (2025) CR 01

[James Carrington]

Ministry of Justice, Prosecution

v.

Fluffywaafelz, Defendant



Criminal Complaint:

The defendant attempted to bribe a law enforcement officer to avoid arrest after committing a murder. The officer apprehended the defendant, who has a prior history of imprisonment for murder. Due to the defendant's prior conviction, we are proceeding with charges solely related to the bribery incident.

Parties:

1. Prosecution: Ministry of Justice
2. Defendant: Fluffywaafelz
3. Arresting Officer: Spyrolix

Factual Allegations:

On January 4th, at approximately 9:00 PM (IRL), the defendant was involved in a criminal incident outside the IKEA premises following the conclusion of an event titled "Murder Mystery at IKEA." During this time, the defendant committed an act of murder and was subsequently confronted by a law enforcement officer intending to make an arrest. In an attempt to evade legal consequences, the defendant offered a bribe to the officer. The defendant has a prior conviction for murder, which further underscores the severity of their actions.


Legal Claims:

The Ministry of Justice, acting as the plaintiff, asserts that the defendant violated Section 2.6 - Bribery. The defendant attempted to unlawfully influence a government employee, specifically a law enforcement officer, by offering a bribe to avoid arrest for a prior criminal act. This action constitutes a direct violation of the prohibition against bribing government employees for personal gain or for the gain of others, as outlined in the relevant statute.

Punishment under Section 2.6 - Bribery includes:

• A fine up to 1.5 times the amount offered as a bribe.
• A 40-minute jail sentence.
• Removal from any government job, if applicable.

Prayer for Relief:

The Ministry of Justice respectfully requests that the Court grant the following relief in accordance with the penalties outlined under Section 2.6 - Bribery:

1. Monetary Fine: The defendant be ordered to pay a fine not exceeding 1.5 times the amount of the bribe offered to the law enforcement officer.
2. Incarceration: The defendant serve a jail sentence of 40 minutes, as stipulated under the statute.
3. Future Employment Restrictions: If the defendant holds or seeks to hold any government job, they be permanently barred from such employment as a result of their violation of Section 2.6.
4. Additional Remedies: Any further relief deemed just and proper by the Court, including any measures necessary to prevent future violations of this nature.

The Ministry of Justice submits this prayer for relief to ensure accountability and uphold the integrity of government operations.


Verification:

I, James Carrington, hereby affirm that the allegations in the complaint AND all subsequent statements made in court are true and correct to the best of the plaintiff's knowledge, information, and belief and that any falsehoods may bring the penalty of perjury.

 

[Westray]

Writ of Summons

Azalea Isles Criminal Court (CV)

Case No. CR-25-01

Prosecutor: James Carrington (ven0msaint)

Defendant: Lebron James (fluffywaafelz)

The Defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of Azalea Isles v. fluffywaafelz. Failure to respond within 48 hours may result in a default judgement.

Both parties are ask to familiarize themselves with the relevant court documents, including proper formats, as well as the laws referenced in the complaint. Ensure that you comply with any court orders.
​

Signed,
Hon. Justice Raymond West

​

 

[fluffywaafelz]

In the Court of the Azalea Isles

Motion to dismiss

Your honor, not a shred of evidence has been provided. I motion the case be thrown out.

 

[Westray]

At this time, the Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied with conditions. The Prosecution is asked to please provide any evidence, as is generally expected in the initial filing. The Prosecution has 24 hours to respond to the court with evidence or an explanation to support the claim. If they do not do so within the required timeframe, this case will be dismissed.

 

[James Carrington]

We will also have Police Sergeant Spyrolix as a witness.

 

[Westray]

The Defendant is hereby asked to provide an answer to the criminal complaint.

 

[fluffywaafelz]

Your Honor,

I request a public defender please

 

[Westray]

Your Honor,

I request a public defender please

There is currently no legal requirement for the court to provide a lawyer. However, it is my understanding that, pursuant to the Criminal Expungement Redo Act, the Ministry of Justice houses its own Office of Public Defenders within the guidelines of its official ministry policy.

Is the Ministry of Justice able to provide a public defender at this time?

 

[James Carrington]

There is currently no legal requirement for the court to provide a lawyer. However, it is my understanding that, pursuant to the Criminal Expungement Redo Act, the Ministry of Justice houses its own Office of Public Defenders within the guidelines of its official ministry policy.

Is the Ministry of Justice able to provide a public defender at this time?

The Ministry of Justice is understaffed at this moment, aside from Galavance being the Minister of Justice, I'm the only qualified staff to bring matters to the court.

 

[Westray]

Given that the Ministry of Justice is unable to provide a public defender, the Defendant will be provided with an extensive 96 hours to post their answer to the criminal complaint. This should suffice enough time to find an attorney and or form of representation for the case.

 

[James Carrington]

The Ministry of Justice respectfully moves to amend the prayer for relief in this case for the following reasons:

1. Purpose of the Motion:
The current prayer for relief asks that Fluffywaafelz, the defendant, be permanently barred from holding public office. After further deliberation, the prosecution feels that this punishment is excessively harsh given the offence.

2. Proposed Amendment:
The Ministry of Justice requests to replace the clause:

"Defendant be permanently barred from holding any government job"

with the following:

"Defendant be temporarily suspended from holding any government job for a period as determined by the Court."

3. Justification:
This amendment maintains the integrity of governmental operations and holds the offender accountable while guaranteeing proportionality between the offence committed and the penalty carried out. Without permanently barring further chances for improvement, a short suspension adequately addresses the defendant's infraction.

4. Request for Relief:
The Ministry of Justice respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion to amend the prayer for relief, as outlined above.

Respectfully submitted,
James Carrington
Ministry of Justice, Prosecution​

 

[Westray]

Considering that the Defendant has not yet provided an answer to the complaint, the Court respectfully accepts this amendment to the prayer for relief. This adjusts the prosecution's prayer for relief under "Future Employment Restrictions" as follows:

"Future Employment Restrictions: If the defendant holds or seeks to hold any government job, they be temporarily suspended from holding any government job for a period as determined by the Court."

As a reminder to the Defendant, they are asked to provide an answer to the criminal compliant within 96 hours.

 

[fluffywaafelz]

In the Court of the Azalea Isles

Motion to Dismiss

Your Honor, Myself, Fluffywaafelz, henceforth referred to as the defendant, respectfully once again submit this motion to dismiss the charges against me on the following grounds: lack of evidence, lack of probable cause, entrapment, prosecutorial misconduct, and malicious prosecution. In support of this motion, the Defendant states as follows:

Lack of Evidence and Probable Cause

1. The prosecution has failed to present any direct or circumstantial evidence to support the allegation that the Defendant intended to make a payment to the officer. This failure undermines the foundation of the bribery charge.
2. The Defendant was merely inquiring into the process of expungement and its associated fees this does not constitute evidence of criminal intent.
3. Assumptions or subjective interpretations of the Defendant’s statements cannot satisfy the prosecution’s burden of proof. The lack of evidence precludes a finding of probable cause, rendering the charges baseless.

Entrapment

1. The Defendant has previously engaged in a legal and routine expungement process with the Ministry of Justice (MOJ), paying an established fee to clear their criminal record. This process was explicitly confirmed as legitimate by the Minister of Justice, Galavance, who stated: "You did not bribe me; you cleared your criminal record for a fee."
2. In the present case, the Defendant merely inquired about the cost of expungement this time, as reflected in the statement, “I need a clean record, how much to let me go.” This inquiry was made in good faith and without any intent to bribe.
3. If this inquiry is now construed as a bribe, it raises serious concerns of entrapment, as the MOJ had previously established the expungement process as lawful. The prosecution’s reinterpretation of the Defendant’s actions is inconsistent with the MOJ’s prior conduct and statements.

Malicious Prosecution

The Defendant believes this case constitutes a politically motivated effort to damage their reputation and impede their candidacy in the upcoming parliamentary election. This belief is supported by the following facts:

1. Both Spyrolix and Minister Galavance, who are involved in this case, are political opponents of the Defendant, are running against the defendant and have actively spread rumours to harm the Defendant’s campaign and reputation.
2. The prosecution’s demand for a suspension from holding any government position is not in line with the maximum punishment under the law and is clearly intended to preclude the Defendant from participating in the election or any future once's. Even the more reasonable legal maximum punishment would allow the defendant to plead guilty and re-run for their seat. The prosecution is clearly, trying to stop this from happening.
3. The prosecution has published alleged evidence in a public political forum (#political-forum) with the apparent intent of using this case as a slanderous tactic against the Defendant’s campaign. This action serves no legitimate legal purpose and demonstrates the prosecution’s ulterior motives.
4. The timing of this case, coupled with the politically charged nature of the allegations, renders this prosecution improper and warrants dismissal.

Summary
The prosecution has failed to present any evidence that the Defendant intended to pay the officer in question and not the Ministry of Justice for a legal expungement process.

All evidence and even statements by the Minister himself demonstrate the Defendant’s lawful intent to inquire about a legal process.

How is asking about the cost of expungement any different from inquiring about paste fees, a driveway or other lawful administrative processes?

Furthermore, this case is rooted in political bias and prosecutorial misconduct, and the charges are baseless. To subject me, to such a blatant malicious politically charged case that fails to meet even the most basic burden of proof as probable cause during the campaign would be a miscarriage of justice.

Therefore, the Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court dismiss the case in its entirety for lack of evidence, lack of probable cause, and prosecutorial misconduct.

Evidence

Spoiler: Exhibit A

 

[Westray]

The Prosecution has 24 hours to respond to the motion to dismiss before the Court makes a decision on it.

 

[James Carrington]

Response to Motion to Dismiss

Case Name: Ministry of Justice v. Fluffywaafelz
Prosecution: Ministry of Justice
Defendant: Fluffywaafelz

To the Honorable Court,

The Ministry of Justice, representing the prosecution, respectfully submits this response opposing the defendant's motion to dismiss the bribery charge. The defendant’s arguments fail to provide a valid basis for dismissal. The motion should be denied for the following reasons:


-----

I. LACK OF EVIDENCE AND PROBABLE CUASE
The Prosecution has presented clear evidence of the defendant's attempt to bribe a law enforcement officer. The chat logs show:

a. The defendant's statement, "I need a clean record, how much to let me go", demonstrates a clear attempt to bypass the formal expungement process outlined in the law. The statue explicitly requires individuals seeking expungement to be crime-free for 30 days, submit a formal request through the Ministry of Justice and pay the associated fee.​

Contrary to the defendant's characterization, this was not a legitimate inquiry about expungement fees, but rather an attempt to induce an officer to forgo an arrest through payment. The context and timing clearly demonstrate criminal intent.

Probable cause does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and the facts in this case surpass the threshold.

II. ENTRAPMENT
The defendant’s claim of entrapment is baseless for the following reasons:

No Inducement by the Government
Entrapment requires that law enforcement induced the defendant to commit a crime they would not have otherwise committed. In this case, the defendant initiated the conversation with the officer, asking, "How much to let me go," without any provocation or suggestion from the government agent. This demonstrates a voluntary act on the part of the defendant.


Misuse of the Expungement Process
The defendant's argument regarding a previous legitimate expungement process with Minister Galavance does not negate the current charges because:

1. The previous interaction was with the Ministry of Justice through proper channels
2. The current incident involved attempting to pay an arresting officer to avoid arrest
3. Minister Galavance's statement about the previous legitimate expungement actually helps distinguish proper from improper conduct

These are fundamentally different situations - one being a legitimate administrative process, the other an attempt to bribe an officer during arrest.


III. POLITICAL MOTIVATION CLAIMS ARE UNSUPPORTED
The defendant's claims of political motivation are irrelevant to the underlying criminal conduct and unsupported because:

1. The prosecution has already amended its prayer for relief to remove permanent employment restrictions
2. The timing of prosecution is directly related to when the offense occurred
3. The evidence was published in accordance with standard transparency procedures

IV. PROBABLE CAUSE IS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED
The evidence establishes probable cause through:

1. Direct evidence of the defendant's statements
2. The context of these statements during arrest
3. Multiple witnesses to the interaction
4. The clear intent to avoid arrest through payment

V. SUMMARY
The prosecution maintains that the defendant’s motion to dismiss is without merit for the following reasons:

1. The defendant’s statement satisfies the elements of bribery as defined under the law.
2. Probable cause exists, supported by the defendant’s own words and the context of the situation.
3. Claims of entrapment, malicious prosecution, and political bias are unfounded and irrelevant.
4. The expungement statute provides a lawful process that the defendant’s actions directly contravened.
5. The prosecution respectfully requests that the Court deny the defendant’s motion to dismiss and allow this case to proceed to trial.

VI. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Prosecution respectfully requests that this Court deny the defendant's Motion to Dismiss in its entirety.

Respectfully submitted,
James Carrington
Ministry of Justice, Prosecution​

 

[Westray]

After careful consideration, the Court has decided to reject the Defendant's motion to dismiss at this time.

The Defendant's motion to dismiss is based on several grounds. This includes lack of evidence, lack of probable cause, entrapment, and claims of political motivation. The Prosecution has provided evidence and arguments countering the defendant’s claims, asserting that probable cause exists and that the defendant's actions meet the legal definition of bribery.

There is significant debate over the Defendant's language in this case. While the Defendant is arguing that "I need a clean record. How much to let me go" is a request to enter the official process of expunging a record, the Prosecution has rightly pointed out that the phrase "How much to let me go" could indicate a bribe to avoid jail time. Whether the Defendant was actually intending to bribe someone or was simply trying to navigate the expungement process is still up for debate. Both parties will need to further examine intent and context on this statement.

The Defendant has also alleged prosecutorial bias, claiming the Prosecution’s actions are politically motivated. The Court finds these allegations unsubstantiated at this stage due to lack of supporting evidence. However, the Defendant is invited to file a new motion with supporting evidence if credible claims of bias or misconduct arise during the trial.

As for the remarks about the public and political use of evidence prior to the filing of this case, the Court would ask that the Ministry of Justice refrains from publishing potentially damaging material before bringing legal action against an individual. Using evidence collected by law enforcement officials for any kind of perceived political gain could potentially be an intrusion on the Defendant's constitutional rights. However, once a trial has been filed, it is public record and therefore out of our hands if a member of the public wishes to share.

Overall, the motion to dismiss raises significant legal and factual issues that require further examination at trial, where the full evidence and arguments will be thoroughly considered. To dismiss at this point would be to reject any further analysis of the events, and would be a great miscarriage of justice.

The Defendant has 48 hours to provide an answer to the complaint, including an entering of a plea to the charges.

 

[James Carrington]

I hereby withdraw from this case. Another representative from the Ministry of Justice will take over its handling moving forward.

 

[spyrolix]

In the Court of the Azalea Isles
MOTION OF SUBSTITION OF COUNCEL

To The Honorable Court,

The undersigned, Oliver Spy, respectfully submits this Motion for Substitution of Counsel in the above-captioned matter and states as follows:

1. Current Representation
   The prosecution in this case is currently represented by James Carrington, who has been serving as counsel of record.
2. Proposed Substitution
   The undersigned, Oliver Spy, seeks to be appointed as substitute counsel for the prosecution, replacing James Carrington.
3. Reason for Substitution
   This substitution is sought to ensure effective representation in the prosecution of this case. As the newly designated prosecutor, I am prepared to diligently advance the interests of justice in this matter.
4. Consent of the Ministry of Justice
   The Ministry of Justice has approved this substitution, and all relevant parties have been informed of this request.

WHEREFORE, the undersigned respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant this Motion for Substitution of Counsel, appointing Oliver Spy as counsel for the prosecution and relieving James Carrington of his duties in this case.

Respectfully submitted,

Oliver Spy
Prosecutor

 

[Westray]

The Court accepts the motion to substitute counsel, as it reasonably prescribed to the Ministry of Justice.

The Defendant is reminded to please respond to the court with an answer to the complaint, including the entering of a plea, within the specified timeframe. If an extension is required, it must be requested in advance.

 

[spyrolix]

Your Honor,

I respectfully bring to your attention that I missed the response deadline by 5 hours due to my motion to substitute counsel not being approved until 3 hours ago, which was already beyond the specified timeframe.

In light of these circumstances, I kindly request a 24-hour extension to the deadline.