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

Signed,
Hon. Justice Raymond West

Your honor,

I request an extension. I have IRL responsibilities until late Saturday and do not have a lawyer at this time.

Since no specific timeframe was specified in the request, the Court will be providing the Defendant with an extension of 48 hours while they seek out legal counsel. This will be in addition to the previous 48 hour notice, providing 96 hours from the summons in total.

Answer to Civil Complaint:

Azalea Isles, Prosecution

v.

Galavance, Defendant, represented by Spyrolix


Factual Defenses or Challenges:
The defendant pleads NOT GUILTY to all three (3) charges of corruption, which are based solely on circumstantial speculation and unsubstantiated evidence presented by the prosecution.
The defendant pleads NOT GUILTY to the charge of treason, as it is presented without any supporting evidence.
Given the numerous points raised, the defense will address each one individually. and respectfully in the following response. The defense notes that point 12 was skipped in the prosecution’s listing, which explains the jump from point 11 to point 13 in our response.

1. The defendant did not leave their previous political party over a tax-cut bill. No evidence for this claim is provided, therefore this should be seen as speculation.

2. The defendant denies the accusation that I sought to leverage my position as Minister of Justice to secure an electoral advantage by targeting political opponents for prosecution. This claim is unsubstantiated and unsupported by any evidence. The defendant requests the prosecutor to provide credible evidence to support their allegation.

3. On January 11, 2025, there was a discussion in the Ministry of Justice’s internal communication channel #High-Command involving Nanicholls, Spyrolix, and Galavance of Justice regarding political opponents. However, this discussion was strictly focused on individuals implicated in alleged criminal activity. At no point were individuals discussed for prosecution without evidence of involvement in a crime or alleged crime.

4. The individuals discussed were all implicated in alleged criminal activity, as evidenced by the provided documentation. Specifically, WetC is alleged to have been involved in bribery (Exhibit E), LukeTheGreat (Luke201556) is alleged to have committed bank robbery (Exhibit J), and MilkCrack is alleged to have been involved in robbery and assault (Exhibit K). There is no indication in the evidence that these individuals were targeted as political opponents of the defendant or any related party. The focus of the discussion was solely on addressing their alleged criminal actions.

5. The discussion partially shown in Exhibit B arose from uncertainty among the participants regarding whether mechanisms for accountability were in place at the time, specifically concerning the suspension of a Prime Minister in the absence of a Deputy Prime Minister. This uncertainty was compounded by the fact that the Prime Minister, MilkCrack, was uncuffable at the time of the incident. It remained under investigation whether this was due to an abuse of power or a technical issue, such as a permissions bug.

6. As shown in Exhibit J for LukeTheGreat (Luke2012556) and Exhibits L and M for fluffywaafelz, the accusations were credible and based on evidence. At no point did the defendant, or anyone else in the group, fabricate the accusations. The charges were pursued following established legal procedures and grounded in the evidence available at the time. Furthermore, the prosecution has provided no evidence to substantiate the claim that the accusations were fabricated, rendering this assertion baseless.

7. The charges of bribery against Fluffywaafelz were pursued with the intention of removing them from office, as outlined in Article 2.6 of the criminal code, which states that bribery warrants removal from any government position. However, the punishment to permanently ban them from office was added unilaterally by the then-General Prosecutor without prior discussion. This action was later reconsidered, leading to the replacement of the General Prosecutor due to a lack of communication on the matter.
In the case of LukeTheGreat, while the message regarding the removal from office was initially presented as a draft and lacked legal standing at the time, it was later included in the official file. However, it is important to clarify that the inclusion of this message was not meant to indicate finality or immediate action. The handling officer, who admits to being mistaken due to lack of sleep, did not intend for the statement to be taken literally or for it to guide legal proceedings without further discussion. The matter was intended to be reviewed and addressed properly, and any decisions regarding LukeTheGreat's charges and consequences were to be made based on thorough deliberation and established legal procedures.

8. The charges against MilkCrack were put aside temporarily pending the conclusion of the investigation into whether their uncuffable status was due to an abuse of power or a technical issue. The defendant intended to resume the prosecution once the matter was clarified, but this was delayed due to a lack of resources and time within the department.
Regarding WetC, the charges of bribery were dropped after further investigation revealed that the issue was not related to bribery but was, instead, a staff-related matter. As such, no further action was pursued in that case.

9. The prosecution has provided no evidence to support the claim that such a voice-chat took place. Any verbal or written communication regarding the possibility of a settlement, as opposed to proceeding with the trial, occurred solely through Spyrolix, the then-General Prosecutor handling the case. There is no indication that the defendant was involved in these discussions.

Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that any communication between the defendant and the mentioned individuals was related to the settlement or involved negotiations between the Ministry of Justice and the affiliated parties of the individuals in question.

10. This claim is based purely on speculation. The evidence presented in Exhibit I only demonstrates that the original prosecutor was being replaced. The prosecution has failed to provide any proof of a secret backroom plan, nor have they shown any concrete details of the discussions that took place in #High-Command at that time. Without such evidence, the assertion remains unfounded and unsupported.

11. The charges against Fluffywaafelz were dropped due to errors made by the original prosecutor handling the case, as outlined in the motion to dismiss on January 15th (Exhibit H). The prosecution has failed to provide any evidence suggesting that there was ill intent behind the decision to drop the charges. The action taken was a result of procedural mistakes, not any unlawful or improper motivations.

13. As previously stated, no charges were fabricated. Exhibit A clearly shows LukeTheGreat stating, and I quote, "doing this for the moment means my court case will be dropped once that happens it's time to play politics tetris." However, the defendant was not aware of this ulterior intent on the part of LukeTheGreat. The prosecution has failed to demonstrate that the defendant approached or offered Luke with the intention or implication that his charges would be dropped as a result of him joining the party.
Furthermore, on January 13th at 11:59, LukeTheGreat provided a response explaining why he did not wish to join the APA (Exhibit N). The conversation that followed, including a voice discussion (exhibit O), was focused on addressing those concerns and did not involve any discussions related to the dropping of charges or political favors.


14. As shown in Exhibits P and Q, LukeTheGreat joined the party on January 13th at 22:21 CEST and became a candidate for parliament within the party on January 14th at 23:01 CEST. The motion to dismiss the charges was filed on January 15th at 17:21 CEST, a full day later, contrary to the prosecution's claim that the events occurred "moments after" each other.
Additionally, the evidence provided by the prosecution (Exhibit G) does not demonstrate that the charges were dropped. Instead, it shows LukeTheGreat responding to the judge after attempting to continue the court case (Exhibit R) following the filing of the motion to dismiss and the agreed settlement. The charges were officially dropped on January 17th at 1:39 CEST, when the judge formally accepted the motion to dismiss, as shown in exhibit S . This occurred four days after LukeTheGreat joined the party, further disproving the prosecution's claim of immediate or connected actions.


15. As shown in Exhibit R, LukeTheGreat did not promptly accept the dismissal of the case. Instead, he filed a response pleading not guilty to all charges. However, the judge did not take this response into account, as it was submitted after the settlement had already been agreed upon and the motion to dismiss had been filed.
Furthermore, the evidence provided by the prosecution to support their claim only reflects LukeTheGreat's own intention or belief that the charges would be dropped if he joined the party. It does not provide any evidence of an offer being made or accepted by LukeTheGreat on behalf of the Defendant. This lack of evidence undermines the prosecution’s claim and fails to establish any improper conduct by the Defendant.

16. The prosecution has presented no evidence to support this statement. The defendant has never intended to use their position as Minister of Justice to intimidate anyone. If any individual felt intimidated, it was not due to any deliberate action or intention on the part of the defendant. Such perceptions, if they occurred, were entirely unintentional and do not constitute misconduct.

17. The prosecution fails to specify what is meant by "Galavance's actions." While the defendant acknowledges having a conversation with LukeTheGreat about joining the party, as previously stated and evidenced in Exhibits N and O, this conversation did not involve any form of duress. Furthermore, there is no indication that the defendant leveraged their position as Minister of Justice to exert undue influence on LukeTheGreat during this discussion.

18. This statement is supported by Exhibit C, which contains no mention of OverlordOfPeonys. Exhibit F, however, documents crimes committed on January 13th. The defendant acknowledges that OverlordOfPeonys had not yet been prosecuted for their involvement in the crimes committed on January 11th. At that time, the investigation was still ongoing, and it was the responsibility of the handling officer, Spyrolix, to complete the investigation in due course.

According to the statutes of limitations, this investigation must be concluded within two months, by March 11th. As this deadline has not yet been reached, the Ministry of Justice still has time to prosecute OverlordOfPeonys and is actively planning to proceed with the prosecution within the established timeframe.

19. The accusation that OverlordOfPeonys was not prosecuted in order to bar them from running in the next election due to their membership in the APA is purely speculative and unfounded. Exhibit F merely demonstrates that OverlordOfPeonys was fined and jailed for committing the crime of robbing a bank on January 13th. This is unrelated to the crime committed by LukeTheGreat on January 11th.

Furthermore, as previously stated, the punishment barring an individual from running in the next election was part of a draft that should have been reviewed and discussed before being filed. It was improperly carried over by the original prosecutor without the necessary deliberation.





Legal Defenses or Challenges:


The prosecution charges the defendant with three counts of corruption but only lists one under the section "corruption" in the allegations.

The defendant is being accused of using a “secret police” , which is never mentioned in the evidence or the factual allegations.
Most of the statements made by the prosecution are not supported by substantial evidence, and those without evidence have been taken out of context, which is refuted by the evidence provided by the defendant. The defendant respectfully requests a motion to dismiss this trial.


Verification:
I, Spyrolix, hereby affirm that the allegations in the answer AND all subsequent statements made in court are true and correct to the best of the defendant’s knowledge, information, and belief and that any falsehoods may bring the penalty of perjury.

The Court thanks the Defendant for their answer to the complaint. The Prosecution now has 48 hours to provide an opening statement to the court.

Your Honour,

In this case, we will prove that Galavance as Minister of Justice abused his authority by knowingly and purposefully targeting political opponents to try and bar them from running in the election.

Galavance has knowingly and purposefully approved the prosecution of 2 political opponents, with the intent to disbar them from holding office and running in any election. This punishment was outside of the law and served no legal justification.

The defendant has lied on several occasions in public chat claiming that no one in high command has ordered the disbarment of these people and they were unaware. Even though there is direct evidence of Galavance discussing just this in the High Command channel prior to the lawsuit.

Furthermore, the defendant has made a clear distinction in the prosecution of these individuals. According to his own Ministry of Justice. OvelordOfPeonys was at the same bank robbery as Luke201556, committing the same act. Yet, OverlordOfPeonys was only charged with bank robbery and never prosecuted with the intent to disbar them from public office or running in any election. OverlordOfPeonys was running with Galavance under his party in the election unlike, Luke201556 who was at the time a political opponent of Galavance.

Additionally, Luke201556 was requested to join the APA at the time, where they had a 23-minute long VC. After which Luke201556 joined the APA and was promptly approached with a very favourable deal to drop his charges and allow him to run in the next election.

Not only, are all of these undisputed facts there is much more additional circumstantial and direct evidence to prove that there was a quid pro quo orchestrated by Galavance where the Ministry of Justice would drop its charges against Luke201556 in return for joining the APA.

The defendant has engaged in a clear pattern of behaviour to plan the targeted malicious prosecution of political opponents under unlawful sentences and successfully use these prosecutions to benefit himself and his party. This makes the defendant guilty of corruption and treason.

The Defendant now has 48 hours to provide an opening statement to the court.

At this time, I wish to remind both parties about the Case Structure. Once the Defendant concludes their opening statement, witnesses will be called. Please begin to prepare a witness list in advance to ensure a timely process in this trial.

Your Honor,

I stand here today to defend Mr. Galavance against baseless accusations of corruption and treason. These allegations lack substance and are built on mischaracterization, aimed at undermining his leadership.

Every prosecution during the defendant’s term has been based on evidence, not political affiliations. This includes the two political opponents mentioned by the plaintiff. It is the defendant’s duty, as Minister of Justice, to prosecute those who break the law, regardless of their position or political beliefs. His commitment to impartial justice should not be misconstrued as political targeting.

The claim that OverlordOfPeonys was treated differently is false—his case remains under investigation, and the crime occurred on January 13th, not January 11th. Regarding Luke201556, any sentencing irregularities were the result of an honest mistake by the arresting officer, which led to a request for case dismissal and settlement. These decisions were not made by the defendant, who took responsibility by allowing the settlement.

The plaintiff also claims the defendant lied about disbarment orders. This is not true. No official order was made; it was a draft, mistakenly including the request of disbarment due to the officer’s fatigue. This draft was never sent in #high-command. The subsequent discussions in #high-command were focused on correcting this error, not enforcing disbarment.

Finally, the plaintiff suggests a link between Luke201556’s joining the APA and the dropping of charges. In reality, the charges were dropped due to irregularities in the case handling, including unlawful punishment. There is no evidence of any ill intent by the defendant —he simply took responsibility for the errors and corrected them.

As you can see, Your Honor, there are two sides to this story. One based on facts and the other based on unsustained evidence and assumptions. In conclusion, the defendant has acted lawfully, impartially, and with integrity throughout his tenure. The accusations against him are unsupported by credible evidence, and we trust the court will see through these baseless claims.

Both parties have 48 hours to provide a list of witnesses they wish to call, or to indicate to the Court that they would like to move forward without calling any witnesses.