Case: Pending 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]

Now I have everything I need. Here is the closing statement:

---

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