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

OverlordOfPeonys

1. According to your criminal record, you were arrested for bank robbery on January 13th. Who was the arresting officer, and can you provide a detailed account of the events leading up to and following your arrest?
2. Was anyone else present with you in the bank on that day? If so, please state how many individuals were involved.
3. Was Police Sergeant Spyrolix online and active in Azelea at the time of this incident?

Nanicholles

1. Did you participate in a discussion regarding the prosecution of Members of Parliament in #high-command on the 5th of January?
2. If you did participate in this discussion, did you strategize on how to best disbar the Members of Parliament in question?
3. When and how did you join the political party APA?
4. Have you ever used your position or resources within the Ministry of Justice to gain a political advantage during the elections?
5. Did you fabricate any charges or allegations against Fluffywaafelz and LukeTheGreat?
6. Did you have any communication with LukeTheGreat regarding his criminal case outside of the official Ministry of Justice channels?

Galavance

1. What were your reasons for leaving your previous political party?
2. During your term, did you ever prosecute or endorse the prosecution of an individual without valid evidence to support the charges?
3. At any point during your term, did you or others strategize in #high-command on methods to remove political opponents from office, and if so, what was discussed?
4. How were the charges against WetC handled?
5. How were the charges against MilkCrack handled?
6. Were the charges and allegations against Fluffywaafelz and LukeTheGreat fabricated or intentionally manipulated by Naninchollis, Spyrolix, or yourself?
7. Were these two individuals charged with their respective charges with the intent of removing them from office and preventing them from running in the election?
8. What were the specific reasons for the charges against Fluffywaafelz?
9. What were the specific reasons for the charges against LukeTheGreat?
10. Did you engage in any communication that had a significant influence on the case with LukeTheGreat or Fluffywaafelz regarding their case outside of official ministerial channels?
11. What was the content of the 23-minute phone call with LukeTheGreat on January 13th, and what topics or matters were discussed during that conversation?
12. What were the grounds for replacing the original prosecutor, ven0msaint, in this case?
13. What were the reasons for the charges against Fluffywaafelz being dropped?
14. What were the reasons for the charges against LukeTheGreat being dropped?
15. A message was sent in #prosecutors containing a draft of the criminal complaint against LukeTheGreat . Were you aware that this draft included a request for removal from office?
16. At any point, did you force or order the general prosecutor to file these charges with the court exactly as stated in the draft?
17. At the time of the events in question, was there an established protocol within the Ministry of Justice that required the Minister’s approval for filing a written complaint with the court?
18. Did the original general prosecutor, ven0msaint, at any point request your approval to file the complaint?
19. During your time as Minister of Justice, did you use your position or authority to intimidate, coerce, or threaten any individual, either directly or indirectly, in order to influence their actions or decisions?
20. When was the first time you discussed running as a party with your current co-party leaders, Spyrolix and Naninchollis?
21. Were any alliances between individuals or parties being discussed prior to this conversation?

I have no further questions, your honor.

1. I was arrested by Mister of Justice Galavance Hamilton for bank robbery. I had robbed the bank, then he asked me to come to the police station, telling me he didn't want to have to chase me down, knowing I was to be arrested I went ahead to the police station and was arrested.
2.I can not confidently say but I doubt so as I did not see any potion effects
3. No police sergeant spryolix was not online during the arrest

1. The way Milkcrack had treated me led me to be disgusted with his political behavior.

2. I did not.

3. We did not.

4. WetC wasn't prosecuted as it was a screenshot from a staff-related outreach program.

5. MilkCrack was under investigation as he was uncuffable, we decided not to prosecute him due to lack of evidence.

6. All charges were based on substantial and credible evidence.

7. The two individuals were charged with their respective charges NOT with the intention to remove them from office nor to prevent them from running in the election.

8. Fluffywaafelz committed murder with multiple witnesses, for which a 911 call was placed. Afterward, he attempted to bribe the arresting officer.

9. LukeTheGreat was being charged with bank robbery and murder because the arresting officer was present in the bank, undercover.

10. I did not.

11. During the call, I mentioned that a settlement would be coming up for both cases. I only mentioned this—no offers were made by either of us. We also discussed his joining the APA, his political views, and some ideas he had for bills.

12. ven0msaint was removed as the prosecutor as he filed to permanently bar Fluffy and Luke.

13. The charges were dropped, and the Ministry of Justice pushed for a settlement as the prosecutor had delayed filing the case for too long. Additionally, the prosecutor unilaterally added a charge of permanent disbarment, which was later changed to 'temporary suspension from holding any government job for a period determined by the court'—a measure not stated in the law. The general prosecutor also failed to consult the Ministry of Justice before responding in court.

14. The charges were dropped because the prosecutor failed to proofread or properly assess the charges, resulting in an unconstitutional prayer for relief. Additionally, the defense against a motion to dismiss relied on a defunct mandate.

15. I was not.

16. I did not.

17. There was.

18. They did not.

19. Never.

20. 1/10/25/ 11:49 AM PST was the first time a party was discussed with Spyrolix. 1/10/2025 1:14 PM PST Was the first time I discussed merging parties with Naninchollis.

21. They were not.

LukeTheGreat:

1. Could you please confirm that Galavance approached you to join the APA before or during the 13th of January?
2. Did it strike you as odd, for the minister in charge of the ministry seeking your disbarment from office to ask you to join their political party?
3. When initially approached you said you had no interest in joining the APA correct?
4. After you stated you had no interest Galavance, asked you to VC correct?
5. During this 23-minute-long VC did you at any point implicitly or explicitly discuss your case?
6. Did Galavance mention he had a gift for you? If so what was this gift?
7. What is the reason that you joined the APA even though you have explicitly stated that you did not want to join the APA before this VC?
8. How long after the VC did you get a settlement offer from the Ministry of Justice?
9. Did Galavance implicitly or explicitly offer to drop your charges in return for joining the APA?

Venomsaint:

1. You were the original prosecutor on the case against Luke correct?
2. Were you ordered by 'High Command' to include disbarment from running for parliament as a charge?
3. And you were requested to do this ASAP correct?
4. Was there any indication by 'High Command' to review these records, or in any way give feedback on the punishments they described?
5. On the 13th of January why were you let go, from your role as Prosecutor on the case?
6. Did you notice anything suspicious around the case? or do you have any reason to think there was an alternative motive for letting you go from this role?

Fluffywaafelz:

1. During or prior settlement negotiations in your case, did you at any point mention to Galavance that disbarring you from running for parliament was illegal and/or unconstitutional?
2. Did Galavance engage or be willing in any way to discuss this issue?
3. Besides being illegal, do you have reason to believe there was an alternative motive, other than upholding justice to disallow you from running for parliament?

Present your honor. My apologies for my tardiness as I came down with the flu and haven't been on my desktop.

1. Yes, it was brought up multiple times.
2. At first no, it was ignored. After a little while of when I assumed they discussed how it actually was illegal he said they were going to modify the prayer for relief.
3. Yes, I believe it was to decrease competition in the election.

In the Court of the Azalea Isles

Your Honor,
The defense seeks your attention to these objections and requests for any answers already given or given in the meantime of your judgement to be motioned to strike.

OBJECTION LEADING
question 1 to LukeTheGreat:

question 3 to LukeTheGreat:
question 3 to Ven0mSaint:
OBJECTION COMPOUND QUESTION
question 7 to LukeTheGreat:

question 4 to Ven0mSaint:
OBJECTION ARGUMENTATIVE
question 7 to LukeTheGreat:

OBJECTION SPECULATION
question 9 to LukeTheGreat:
question 6 to ven0mSaint:
question 3 to fluffywaafelz:
Thank you, Your Honor.

In the Court of the Azalea Isles

OBJECTION SPECULATION
Your Honor,

The defense objects to the second answer provided by the witness, Fluffywaafelz, in response to the prosecution's question. Specifically, the witness stated, and I quote: 'After a little while of when I assumed they discussed how it actually was illegal, he said they were going to modify the prayer for relief.' The witness is offering assumptions about the discussions of others, which constitutes speculation and lacks personal knowledge. We respectfully request that this specific answer, in response to question 2, be fully stricken from the record, as it is speculative and inadmissible.

Thank you, Your Honor.

After careful consideration, the Court renders the following decisions on the Defence's objections:

Question 1 to Luke: Objection is overruled. The question is not leading because it seeks confirmation of a fact that the witness is in a unique position to answer
Question 7 to Luke: Objection is overruled. The phrasing of such question seeks clarification on whether the witness expressed their position explicitly. It does not suggest the answer as is required for a question to be argumentative.
Question 9 to Luke: Objection is overruled. The question does not require speculation. The witness is asked to testify based on their perception and experience, which is within their personal knowledge.

Question 3 to James (Venom): Objection is overruled. The question seeks factual confirmation of whether urgency was present. It does not direct the witness to a specific answer. The witness is asked to answer.
Question 4 to James (Venom): Objection is sustained. The question merges two separate issues: oversight and feedback. The witness is asked to answer both questions separately instead.
Question 6 to James (Venom): Objection is sustained. The question invites the witness to speculate about the motives of others, which is inadmissible unless they have direct knowledge or evidence. Instead, the witness is asked to answer the first part of the question only.

Question 3 to Lebron (Fluffywaafelz): Objection is sustained. The question requires the witness to infer motives, which is speculative and inadmissible. The question and answer by the witness shall be struck from the record.
Answer to Question 4 by Lebron (Fluffywaafelz): Objection is overruled. The witness is recounting their perception of the events and their interpretation of the situation as it unfolded, rather than outright speculating.

---

@James Carrington, for your own clarification, the Court is asking that you answer questions 1, 2, 3, by the Prosecution in addition to these rephrased questions:

4. Was there any indication by 'High Command' to review these records?
5. Was there any way to give feedback on the punishments they described?
6. On the 13th of January why were you let go, from your role as Prosecutor on the case?
7. Did you notice anything suspicious around the case?

Thank you, I will answer the questions tomorrow. (sorry for the delay, school has been horrendous)

1. You were the original prosecutor on the case against Luke correct?

Yes

1. Were you ordered by 'High Command' to include disbarment from running for parliament as a charge?

Not sure if Spyro counts as hicom, but on the report they sent they started the MOJ asked for the defendant to be disbarred.

1. And you were requested to do this ASAP correct?

I was asked, yes, again by Spyro.

1. Was there any indication by 'High Command' to review these records

No, not exactly.

1. Was there any way to give feedback on the punishments they described

I was able to write in chat but I didn’t ask anything else.

1. On the 13th of January why were you let go, from your role as Prosecutor on the case?

Gala said he didn’t like the way I handled the case but nothing else was explained.

1. Did you notice anything suspicious around the case?

No, I just followed the orders to prosecute.

The Prosecution may now cross-examine by posing questions to the witnesses called by the Defence:

• Overlord Peonys (Overlordofpeonys)
• Nanicholls
• Gala Hamilton (Galavance)

The Prosecution has 48 hours to do so, @Omegabiebel.