Case: Pending Azalea Isles v. Dayvon Parentless (2026) CR 02

[Phoenix Flamesong]

Azalea Isles, Prosecution

v.

Dayvon Parentless, Defendant

Civil Complaint:
The defendant, Dayvon Parentless, is charged with Obstruction of Justice [x1]. The defendant attempted to fake multiple screenshots and pass them on as true in order to get multiple murder charges dropped from his record. This delayed the contest ticket further, as well as making it harder to know if the charges were truly dropped or not, thus obstructing justice.

Parties:

1. Prosecution, Ministry of Justice
2. Defendant, Dayvon Parentless

Factual Allegations:

1. On 06/18/2026, between 6:03 am to 6:06 am server time, Dayvon Parentless received four auto generated murder warrants, all reported by Jory Romulus. (P-001), (P-002), (P-003), (P-004), (P-005).
2. After being arrested, Dayvon Parentless asked to contest, giving a screenshot of Jory claiming to drop charges without a specified date. The ministry asked for one with a date, to ensure it was relevant to the current warrants.
3. On 6/25/2026, at 9:37 pm Azalea time, Dayvon Parentless closed out his original ticket, and opened a new ticket, posting a screenshot of Jory claiming "I drop charges". (P-006)
4. Upon closer observations of the image, the image appeared to be fake, with no "am" or "pm" besides the date, and spacing and font looking wrong. Dayvon Parentless was questioned on this. (P-008)
5. Dayvon then proceeded to send another image, before admitting the images were faked to see how the MOJ deals with false statements. (P-007), (P-009)

Legal Claims:

1. Faking screenshots in an attempt to get any number of criminal records purged from your record without jailtime or fines is clear obstruction of justice. The defendant admitted to doing so.
2. The Defendant engaged in the act of Obstruction of Justice as defined by the New Criminal Code Act §6b(iii). A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) intentionally interferes with or hinders the administration of justice, including but not limited to tampering with evidence, providing false statements, or interfering with the lawful duties of law enforcement or judicial officers.


Prayer for Relief:
A ruling which finds the defendant guilty of obstruction of justice with the maximum fine of $5000 and the maximum jailtime of 30 minutes.

Trial Location:
The prosecution does not wish for an in-person trial.

Verification:
I, Phoenix Flamesong, 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.

Spoiler: Exhibit P-001

Spoiler: Exhibit P-002

Spoiler: Exhibit P-003

Spoiler: Exhibit P-004

Spoiler: Exhibit P-005

Spoiler: Exhibit P-006

Spoiler: Exhibit P-007

Spoiler: Exhibit P-008

Spoiler: Exhibit P-009

 

[Westray]

Writ of Summons

Azalea Isles Supreme Court, Criminal Case (CR)

Case No. CR-26-02
​

Prosecutors: Phoenix Flamesong (PhoenixFlamesong), representing Azalea Isles
Defendant: Dayvon Parentless (AgentSquid2012)

​

The Defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of Azalea Isles v. Dayvon Parentless. 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. Chief Justice Raymond West

 

[Agentsquid2012]

Your honor , I will be representing myself in this matter .

 

[Westray]

Your honor , I will be representing myself in this matter .

Thank you for informing the court. You have 48 hours to provide your answer to the complaint.

 

[Agentsquid2012]

Answer to CriminalComplaint:

Azalea Isles v. Dayvon Parentless - Obstruction of Justice


Parties:

Plaintiff - Azalea Isles

Defendant - Dayvon Parentless
Factual Claims:

The Defendant AGREES with factual claims 1 .
The Defendant AGREES with factual claim 4.
The Defendant AGREES with factual claim 5.

The Defendant DISAGREES Factual claim 2 .The prosecution has provded no evidence nor do we know which screenshot they are refering to.
The Defendant DISAGREES Factual claim 3. P006 seems to be a picture of jory droping charges.

Legal Claims:
Per Section 6(b)(iii)(1) of the New Criminal Code Act, for a person to be guilty of Obstruction of Justice, they must intentionally interfere or hinder the administration of justice. The Defendant's action were not intended to interfere or hinder in the administration of justice. When asked about the screenshots, the Defendant immediately admitted that he was kidding. There was never a real attempt to intentionally mislead Minister Flamesong at any point Furthermore, personal DMs are not admissible as evidence without the consent of all parties involved, so the screenshots do not constitute evidence. Also, the screenshot itself, regardless of its authenticity, would constitute hearsay and would be inadmissible in court.
The truth of the matter is that the Defendant informed the Minister of Justice that Jory Romulus was willing to drop charges after opening a contest ticket, but the Minister failed to do their due diligence and reach out to Mr. Romulus independently. The Defendant's action was meant as a sign of protest in the hopes that the Minister would finally do her job, and that justice may finally prevail.

Requested Outcome:

The Defendant requests dismissal. If the court doesnt agree, the Defendant requests the minimum of 15 minutes jail time and a $1,000 fine.
Verification:

I, Dayvon Parentless, hereby affirm that the allegations in this 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.

 

[Westray]

Thank you for your answer to the complaint.

The Prosecution has 48 hours to present their opening statement.

 

[Phoenix Flamesong]

Opening Statements

Your Honor,

In the New Criminal Code Act, the definition of Obstruction of Justice is clear. "A person commits an offense if the person: intentionally interferes with or hinders the administration of justice, including but not limited to tampering with evidence, providing false statements, or interfering with the lawful duties of law enforcement or judicial officers."

The matter at hand was a contest ticket, where the main defense was that everyone was going to drop it. Had Jory not dropped charges, the defendant would go to jail on four counts of murder, something that would hinder his long pursuit of getting a position in the Ministry of Justice.

When he submitted the initial screenshot, the one that had no date, and was in the deleted ticket, I was hesitant, given that I had heard multiple people say Jory was unwilling to drop these charges. Therefore I wanted to do my due diligence, to avoid dropping a charge that shouldn’t be dropped. I attempted to contact Mr. Romulus on multiple occasions, however they were not answered due to his leave of absence.

When the defendant sent the screenshots, I was skeptical because of the inconsistencies between the two screenshots.

If you look at Exhibits P-006 and P-007, you can see the first one has the header of “today”, when Discord has it as the date. Additionally, in the first screenshot, you can see that Jory’s message was the first posted that day, and the time read 12:38 with no AM or PM indicator. When you compare it to the second one he sent as proof they weren’t fake, there is now a message above the one Jory sent, and pm magically appears on the time.

These are blatantly fake screenshots, which the defendant admitted to. However, these screenshots cost the ministry valuable time, as effort had to be put into investigating if the screenshots were fake or not, and then to continue to try and chase Mr. Romulus down, to see if the charges were truely going to get dropped.

It doesn’t matter if it was a joke or a test. The defendant tampered with screenshots, making false statements to try and mislead the ministry to drop his charges. This is obstruction of justice and should be treated as such.

 

[Agentsquid2012]

When he submitted the initial screenshot, the one that had no date, and was in the deleted ticket, I was hesitant, given that I had heard multiple people say Jory was unwilling to drop these charges.

MOTION TO STRIKE

Your Honour, this statement relies on unspecified out-of-court declarations offered for the truth of the matter asserted and is not supported by any competent evidence in the record. It constitutes hearsay. I move the court to strike it.

---

, something that would hinder his long pursuit of getting a position in the Ministry of Justice

MOTION TO STRIKE

Your Honour, this statement introduces speculative and prejudicial commentary regarding future employment consequences, which does not tend to prove or disprove any material fact at issue. I move the court to strike it.

---

The defendant tampered with screenshots, making false statements to try and mislead the ministry to drop his charges.

MOTION TO STRIKE

Your Honour, this statement is speculating about the Defendant's state of mind. I move the court to strike it.

 

[Phoenix Flamesong]

Response to motions to strike

Your honor,
1. I can show the ticket this screenshot was posted in. However the image itself was purged when some spring cleaning happened, which included the ticket the defendant closed for no reason without the minister’s instruction. Furthermore, the claims from other people are simply part of the investigation process that was utilized in the matters. I can provide a witness who could back these claims up, should the court desire.

2. Your honor, the defendant has put in a massive amount of applications to the ministry of justice, even after being denied countless times for criminal purposes. Additionally, it has been longstanding policy of the Ministry that you can’t remain in the department with a record, and you have to be crime free for 30 days when applying. The defendant had an application open during the duration of this contest, and had the charges not been dropped, the defendant would have been unable to get the ministry position. This is crucial to this case because had Jory not dropped these charges, that 30 day timer would reset and the defendant would have to wait. Had I believed the fake screenshots, he would likely be serving in the ministry today.

3. The goal of the contest, was once again, to prove to me the people who filed the charges dropped them. Fake screenshots are meant to deceive anyone who views them in to believing whatever is on the screenshot is real. He claimed he had evidence, and presented it multiple times as true. There is no other explanation to why the effort would be made to make two nearly identical screenshot, if it was simply a test.

 

[Westray]

MOTION TO STRIKE

Your Honour, this statement relies on unspecified out-of-court declarations offered for the truth of the matter asserted and is not supported by any competent evidence in the record. It constitutes hearsay. I move the court to strike it.

This motion is hereby respectfully rejected. Opening statements are not evidence. They are roadmaps of what the party intends to prove in this case through its arguments and witness testimony.

The Prosecution is not offering these third-party rumors to legally prove Jory Romulus's actual intent. Rather, the statement is introduced to explain the procedural delay in why the Ministry did not immediately accept the Defendant's initial undated screenshot. Because the statement explains the lawful duties and investigative timeline of the Ministry, it does not constitute inadmissible hearsay in this context.

MOTION TO STRIKE

Your Honour, this statement introduces speculative and prejudicial commentary regarding future employment consequences, which does not tend to prove or disprove any material fact at issue. I move the court to strike it.

This motion is hereby respectfully rejected. In any criminal matter requiring specific intent, evidence of a defendant's motive is highly material. The prospective benefit of achieving a clean record to secure government employment may address why the alleged fabrication occurred.

MOTION TO STRIKE

Your Honour, this statement is speculating about the Defendant's state of mind. I move the court to strike it.

This motion is hereby respectfully rejected. Under §6(b) of the New Criminal Code Act, the text requires proof that the accused person "intentionally interferes with or hinders" with the administration of justice. This means that the statutory definition requires proof of intent. As such, the Prosecution is not only permitted but legally obligated to argue that the alleged tampered evidence from the Defendant demonstrates a deceptive state of mind.

 

[Westray]

The Defence has 48 hours to provide their opening statement.

 

[Agentsquid2012]

Your Honor,

This case is not about whether the screenshots were edited. I have already acknowledged that they were. The issue before the Court is whether those actions constituted an intentional attempt to interfere with or hinder the administration of justice, as required under Section 6(b)(iii)(1) of the New Criminal Code Act.

I respectfully submit that they did not.

Prior to the creation of any screenshots, I had already initiated a contest regarding the murder warrants at issue. Over the course of approximately one week, I repeatedly sought review of the matter and requested that the Ministry of Justice contact Jory Romulus to determine whether he still intended to pursue the charges. Despite those requests, no such inquiry was made.

As a result, the contest remained largely inactive while the charges continued to exist. During that period, I was repeatedly approached by law enforcement concerning warrants that I was actively attempting to challenge through the proper legal process. From my perspective, the matter had stalled entirely, despite the existence of information that could have been readily verified through direct communication with the complainant.

As time passed without meaningful progress, I became increasingly frustrated. I believed that the contest process was not moving forward and that the information I had directed the Ministry toward was not being investigated. It was within that context that the screenshots were created.

However, frustration and poor judgment are not equivalent to criminal intent.

The screenshots were not created for the purpose of concealing evidence, destroying evidence, altering official records, or preventing an investigation from taking place. They were created as a misguided attempt to draw attention to a matter that I believed was being ignored. While I acknowledge that editing the screenshots was improper, that fact alone does not establish the specific intent required for a conviction of Obstruction of Justice.

It is also significant that the underlying issue I was attempting to raise ultimately proved to have merit. Jory Romulus later withdrew the charges. The central claim I was making, namely that he no longer wished to pursue the matter, was ultimately confirmed. Had the Ministry contacted him when I initially requested that they do so, that information could have been obtained through legitimate means much earlier in the process.

The law requires the prosecution to prove more than the existence of edited screenshots. It requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that I intentionally sought to interfere with the administration of justice itself.

The evidence does not support that conclusion.

I did not destroy evidence. I did not falsify government records. I did not prevent investigators from conducting their work. In fact, the authenticity of the screenshots was questioned almost immediately, and I acknowledged that they had been edited. There was no prolonged deception, no successful concealment of information, and no actual impairment of the Ministry's ability to investigate the matter.

At most, the evidence demonstrates that I exercised poor judgment while frustrated with a contest process that appeared to have stalled and while continuing to face the consequences of charges that were actively being challenged. Poor judgment may warrant criticism, but it does not satisfy the legal requirement of criminal intent.

Accordingly, I respectfully submit that the prosecution has failed to establish the intent element of Obstruction of Justice beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence demonstrates frustration with a delayed process, not a deliberate effort to obstruct justice.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Court dismiss the charge of Obstruction of Justice and enter a finding of not guilty.

 

[Westray]

Thank you to the Prosecution and Defendant for your opening statements.

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. Please be advised you may be responsible for certain applicable fees according to the Court Reformation Act.

 

[Phoenix Flamesong]

Your honor,

The Prosecution would like to call Jory Romulus as a witness.