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

[Phoenix Flamesong]

Closing Statements

Your Honor,

This case is a clear example of obstruction of justice. The defendant had multiple charges against him his only defense against was “the accuser is dropping them”. The accuser was on leave of absence, not getting back with anyone, and it was effecting the defendant’s ability to get hired at the Ministry of Justice. In a moment of desperation, he faked multiple screenshots, trying to convince me, the minister at the time, to drop the charges. When that didn’t work, the defendant admitted to faking the screenshots, trying to pass it off as a joke.

This instance wasted ministry time, as the time poured into this case both during the contest ticket and during the case filing stole precious minutes from what would be the end of my term, in which other things that needed to be done didn’t get done, thus obstructing justice. They also tampered with evidence, by faking screenshots from the accuser, and provided false statements, verifying multiple times that they were real and from the accuser.

With such a clear and blatant disregard for ministry time, and a clear and blatant violation of the law, the prosecution asks the court to find the defendant guilty of obstruction of justice and given the full penalty under the law.

Thank you.

 

[Westray]

Thank you for your closing statement.

The Defendant is asked to provide a closing statement to the Court within 48 hours.

 

[Agentsquid2012]

Your Honor,


I sincerely apologize for the delay in submitting this closing statement. I take full responsibility for that oversight.


The prosecution has asked this Court to find the Defendant guilty of Obstruction of Justice. To do so, this Court must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant intentionally interfered with or hindered the administration of justice under Section 6(b)(iii)(1) of the New Criminal Code Act. The evidence does not support that conclusion.


Let us start with what this case has actually established. The Defendant admitted to editing screenshots. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether those actions constituted intentional obstruction of justice. The prosecution must prove intent. Poor judgment is not intent. Frustration is not intent. A misguided attempt to draw attention to a stalled process is not intent.


The most significant development in this case came not from the Defendant but from the prosecution itself. The prosecution called Jory Romulus as a witness for two stated purposes: to confirm the screenshots were fake, and to prove that he was on Leave of Absence during the contest period, thereby explaining the Ministry's delay. Then the prosecution withdrew him entirely because, in their own words, both of those facts were already established in the record.


Think about what that means. The prosecution's own witness decision confirms that Jory Romulus was on Leave of Absence during the entire contest period. That is the reason the Ministry could not reach him. That is the reason the contest stalled. The Defendant was not the cause of the delay. The LOA was the cause of the delay. The Defendant was attempting to resolve a contest that had ground to a halt through no fault of his own.


Furthermore the prosecution confirmed that the underlying claim the Defendant was making was ultimately true. Jory Romulus did drop the charges. The Defendant was not lying about the substance of what he was claiming. He was telling the truth about what Jory intended to do. The only thing the Defendant did wrong was attempt to illustrate that truth through improper means when the proper channels had failed to produce any result.


The prosecution also argued that the Defendant's motive was to secure employment with the Ministry of Justice. But motive to clear one's record through a legitimate contest process is not a crime. Every defendant who contests charges wants them dropped. That desire does not transform a misguided act into criminal obstruction.


The prosecution has also argued that the screenshots cost the Ministry valuable time. But the Ministry's own conduct contributed to that delay. When the Defendant informed the Ministry that Jory Romulus was willing to drop the charges, the Ministry did not independently verify that claim through direct contact. The Ministry waited. The contest stalled. The Defendant grew frustrated. And importantly the Ministry identified the screenshots as fake almost immediately. There was no prolonged deception. There was no successful concealment. The Ministry's investigation was not impaired.


Obstruction of Justice requires intentional interference with the administration of justice. What the evidence shows is a defendant who was frustrated with a stalled process, whose underlying claim was ultimately proven true, whose edited screenshots were identified immediately, who admitted to the editing when questioned, and who caused no actual impairment to the Ministry's ability to investigate the matter.


That is not obstruction of justice. That is poor judgment under frustrating circumstances. And poor judgment, however worthy of criticism, does not satisfy the intent requirement of Section 6(b)(iii)(1).


The prosecution has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant intentionally sought to hinder the administration of justice. I respectfully request that this Court enter a finding of not guilty and dismiss the charge of Obstruction of Justice.


Respectfully submitted,


Dayvon Parentless
Defendant, Self Represented

 

[Agentsquid2012]

"In a moment of desperation, he faked multiple screenshots..."

MOTION TO STRIKE

Your Honor,

The Prosecution has not proven that I acted out of "desperation." That is an opinion about my state of mind, not a fact established by the evidence. I respectfully move to strike this statement.

---

"...trying to convince me, the minister at the time, to drop the charges."

MOTION TO STRIKE

Your Honor,

The Prosecution has not proven what my intent was. Whether I was attempting to convince the Ministry to act is an assumption, not an established fact. Intent cannot simply be inferred in a closing statement. I respectfully move to strike this statement.

---

"When that didn't work, the defendant admitted to faking the screenshots, trying to pass it off as a joke."

MOTION TO STRIKE

Your Honor,

The claim that I was "trying to pass it off as a joke" is speculation about my intent. The Prosecution has not presented evidence establishing why I made that statement. I respectfully move to strike this portion.

---

"They also tampered with evidence..."

MOTION TO STRIKE

Your Honor,

The Prosecution repeatedly refers to the screenshots as "evidence," but has never established that they were official evidence in any proceeding. Whether the screenshots legally constitute evidence is a conclusion the Court must decide, not the Prosecution. I respectfully move to strike this statement.

---

"...provided false statements, verifying multiple times that they were real."

MOTION TO STRIKE

Your Honor,

The Prosecution has not cited any testimony or exhibits establishing that I made these statements "multiple times." This is an unsupported factual assertion, and I respectfully move to strike it.

---

"The accuser was on leave of absence..."

MOTION TO STRIKE

Your Honor,

To the extent the Prosecution relies on statements made by Jory Romulus regarding his leave of absence or intentions, those statements were never introduced through testimony. The Prosecution withdrew its only witness, and therefore any statements attributed to him are hearsay and were never subject to examination. I respectfully move to strike any argument relying on those statements.

 

[Westray]

On the Motions

After much consideration after hearing the arguments presented in these motions, the Court is now prepared to make a decision.

MOTION TO STRIKE

Your Honor,

The Prosecution has not proven that I acted out of "desperation." That is an opinion about my state of mind, not a fact established by the evidence. I respectfully move to strike this statement.

MOTION TO STRIKE

Your Honor,

The Prosecution has not proven what my intent was. Whether I was attempting to convince the Ministry to act is an assumption, not an established fact. Intent cannot simply be inferred in a closing statement. I respectfully move to strike this statement.

MOTION TO STRIKE

Your Honor,

The claim that I was "trying to pass it off as a joke" is speculation about my intent. The Prosecution has not presented evidence establishing why I made that statement. I respectfully move to strike this portion.

The first three motions to strike as respectfully rejected. As previously stated in earlier rulings on motions to strike, opening and closing statements are opportunities for the respective party to lay out their case and summarize it accordingly.

Under §6(b)(iii)(1) of the New Criminal Code Act, Obstruction of Justice carries a specific intent element ("intentionally interferes with or hinders"). Therefore, the Prosecution is expected to offer a narrative explaining the Defendant's alleged state of mind as it relates to intent. They are putting together the evidence of this case to offer their theory behind it, which is part of their argumentation.

MOTION TO STRIKE

Your Honor,

The Prosecution repeatedly refers to the screenshots as "evidence," but has never established that they were official evidence in any proceeding. Whether the screenshots legally constitute evidence is a conclusion the Court must decide, not the Prosecution. I respectfully move to strike this statement.

This motion is respectfully rejected. Whether the submitted screenshots constitute evidence within the meaning of §6(b)(iii)(1) is a question of the law and a fact central to the charge itself. You are correct that the Prosecution cannot decide whether something legally constitutes evidence, but the Prosecution is still entitled to characterize the materials as part of their closing theory.

MOTION TO STRIKE

Your Honor,

The Prosecution has not cited any testimony or exhibits establishing that I made these statements "multiple times." This is an unsupported factual assertion, and I respectfully move to strike it.

This motion is respectfully rejected. The Prosecution's characterization draws directly from Exhibits P-006 through P-009, in which the Defendant submitted an initial screenshot, was questioned regarding its authenticity, and then provided a second altered screenshot before confessing. This means that alleged false statements were made at least more than once. Given the evidence here, it seems like a reasonable closing argument.

MOTION TO STRIKE

Your Honor,

To the extent the Prosecution relies on statements made by Jory Romulus regarding his leave of absence or intentions, those statements were never introduced through testimony. The Prosecution withdrew its only witness, and therefore any statements attributed to him are hearsay and were never subject to examination. I respectfully move to strike any argument relying on those statements.

This motion is hereby accepted. Although his Leave of Absence (LoA) was considered strictly to evaluate his availability as a summoned witness, the Prosecution formally withdrew Mr. Romulus before his testimony or official records were subjected to cross-examination. While Mr. Romulus had filed a formal Leave of Absence, he remained sufficiently active to respond directly to this court thread with the remark, "...please leave a message after the beep." Reasonable questions can be raised as to whether a complainant can invoke an LoA to indefinitely delay an administrative contest while continuing to interact elsewhere.

The Prosecution was also offered the opportunity to explain how the witness may be essential to the case, and the Prosecution decided to continue without the witness. The Prosecution also did not present any additional records or testimony regarding his availability. Therefore, with all of this considered, the Prosecution may not rely on unintroduced assertions regarding his LoA to explain certain delays. All references to Jory's LoA in the closing statement are hereby stricken.

Now that these motions have been addressed, a verdict on this case will be delivered soon.

 

[Westray]

Court Verdict
Azalea Isles Supreme Court, Criminal Case (CR)

Case No. CR-26-02
Azalea Isles v. Dayvon Parentless (AldricThornwatch, fmr. AgentSquid2012)

Position of the Prosecution
1. The Prosecution alleges that the Defendant violated §6(b)(iii)(1) of the New Criminal Code Act by intentionally obstructing justice through the creation and submission of falsified screenshots showing that a victim of his alleged murder had dropped the charges.
2. The Prosecution contends that the Defendant repeatedly submitted manufactured discord message screenshots during an administrative contest ticket in a deliberate attempt to deceive the Ministry of Justice into dropping four murder charges.
3. The Prosecution argues that the Defendant's actions wasted valuable Ministry time and investigative resources. The Prosecution also infers that the Defendant's underlying motive was to clear his criminal record to qualify for employment within the Ministry of Justice.

Position of the Defendant
1. The Defendant, Dayvon Parentless, acknowledges that the screenshots were edited but denies possessing the specific intent required for a conviction of Obstruction of Justice under §6(b)(iii)(1) of the New Criminal Code Act.
2. The Defendant asserts that his actions were born out of frustration with administrative delays caused by a Leave of Absence (LoA) filed by the victim of the murders, Brim Fire. As such, the Defendant argues his actions were meant as a sign of protest rather than an intentional effort to hinder justice. He also claims that actions borne of frustration don't constitute intent.
3. The Defendant contends that because his underlying substantive claim was true as the victim did eventually drop the charges and that he admitted to the altering of screenshots shortly after being questioned, there was no actual impairment to the investigation.

Court Opinion
1. Under §6(b)(iii)(1) of the New Criminal Code Act, Obstruction of Justice is defined as committing an offence that "intentionally interferes with or hinders the administration of justice, including but not limited to tampering with evidence..." The Court finds that submitting fabricated screenshots to a public official during such a ticket (as defined under §12(a) of the same Act) constitutes providing false statements and tampering with evidence.
2. The Court rejects the Defence's contention that frustration or "a sign of protest" negates criminal intent. The Defendant has fulfilled both the mens rea and the actus rea of this crime as he was well aware of his actions. The Defendant's choice to submit fabricated screenshots was a deliberate and intentional act designed to mislead a public official. This is supported by the fact that the Defendant submitted an additional fabricated screenshot (as seen in Exhibit P-007) after being questioned about his initial submission to the Ministry of Justice.
3. The Court finds that the Defendant's actions actively hindered the administration of justice as it forced the Ministry to divert official time and investigative resources away from legitimate duties in order to determine the legitimacy of the fabricated evidence he presented. Furthermore, simply because the victim of the murders that the Defendant was intending to drop through deception later decided to drop those charges, it does not erase the crime of Obstruction of Justice that has been committed here.
4. The Defendant's belief that you can simply negate a criminal act by saying you are just kidding once you are backed into a corner is not a sufficient defence to make in a court of law. Exercising poor judgement does also not remove the actual intent behind the criminal act.
5. The Court finds that the severity of the crime in this case is significant. The Defendant has admitted that he provided fabricated screenshots but has completely denied taking any responsibility under the law. Given that the Defendant has expressed no remorse for his criminal acts, and has sought to find ways to excuse them, the Court agrees with the Prosecution’s request for the maximum punishment to be issued.

Majority Opinion Delivered by Chief Justice Raymond West, and joined by Justice Milk Crack.

Decision
The Azalea Isles Supreme Court hereby finds the Defendant, Dayvon Parentless (AldricThornwatch, fmr. AgentSquid2012), guilty on the charges of Obstruction of Justice, ordering the following sentence:

1. The Ministry of Justice shall fine the Defendant, Dayvon Parentless, a total sum of $5000.
2. The Defendant, Dayvon Parentless, shall be jailed for 30 minutes.

Signed,

Hon. Chief Justice Raymond West
Hon. Justice Milk Crack