Hello, Guest

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.
By:
Advanced search…
What's new

Case: Adjourned 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. Yes, I did.
  2. I took part in a discussion where we tried to figure out the legislation relating to the suspension of the Prime Minister. I had earlier attempted to cuff him for a robbery and it told me he was immune to cuffing, so this was an ongoing dicussion we had because it was something we had not encountered. The MoJ looked into this to investigate if it was a staff issue or abuse of his position.
  3. I joined the APA on January the 10th. Galavance and I had a dicussion that day where I had complained that my party felt dead in the water and he had said he planned to make a party. I joined that evening.
  4. I have not.
  5. I did not.
  6. No.
 
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:
This question suggests the answer and is framed to confirm a fact rather than allowing the witness to provide their own testimony.​

question 3 to LukeTheGreat:
This question assumes the witness explicitly stated they had no interest and frames the answer within the question itself.​
​
question 3 to Ven0mSaint:
This question suggests urgency instead of asking whether urgency was present. The question merely asks for confirmation.​
​
OBJECTION COMPOUND QUESTION
question 7 to LukeTheGreat:
This question combines two questions: (1) Why did you join the APA? and (2) Why did you join despite stating you didn’t want to?​

question 4 to Ven0mSaint:
This question combines two separate questions: (1) Was there an indication of high command reviewing these records? and (2) Was there an indication of high command giving feedback?​
​
OBJECTION ARGUMENTATIVE
question 7 to LukeTheGreat:
The phrasing of this question implies inconsistency on the witness's part and challenges them to explain it, making it argumentative.​
​

OBJECTION SPECULATION
question 9 to LukeTheGreat:
This question asks the witness to interpret potential implicit offers, which would require speculation rather than direct knowledge.​
​
question 6 to ven0mSaint:
This question asks the witness to speculate about possible motives.​
​
question 3 to fluffywaafelz:
This question asks the witness to infer motives rather than testify to what they know.​
​
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.
 
  1. Could you please confirm that Galavance approached you to join the APA before or during the 13th of January?

    Yes.

  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?

    It came across extremely odd especially as I had previously held openly opposite or contradictory views to the APA and the views of the parties adjoining before the merger. Furthermore, compounded that I was publicly and openly libertarian right in my political views father than the centre left that the APA claims to be.

  3. When initially approached you said you had no interest in joining the APA correct?

    Admittedly I was not so direct with my dismissal and no interest of joining due to my legal disposition and Galavances oversee of the my case I had shown my uninterest through the following statement, "well the APA does not currently have any policies that mesh with my economic platform and well you've seen me with Milk I tend to get into yelling matches even with people on my side of the dotted line". This was meant as a polite way of saying no while avoiding offending the other party who had already got a court case against me and had tried to get me disbarred from office. After he further attempted to get me to join I made my stance more clear by going through a small list of the reasons why I was not interested in working with them.

  4. After you stated you had no interest Galavance, asked you to VC correct?

    Galavance asked me if I could join a private VC with directly following the above stated list of reasons why I did not wish to join the APA.

  5. During this 23-minute-long VC did you at any point implicitly or explicitly discuss your case?

    There was no explicit discussion of the case other than Galavance stating that I would be happy to hear that Spyrolix would be in contact soon to discuss a plea deal to drop the case.

  6. Did Galavance mention he had a gift for you? If so what was this gift?

    No

  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?

    Due to the timing and tone of Galavance's announcement of the above mentioned soon to be contact by Spyrolix for a plea deal and the fact that Galavance had asked for this to be a VC rather than just continuing messaging on discord where I would have record and evidence of him saying that there was to be a plea deal, as we had previously been messaging before without issue. This lead me to strongly believe that I had no option but to join the APA or I would not get the aforementioned plea deal and I would have to continue fighting my expensive lawsuit with no legal council.

  8. How long after the VC did you get a settlement offer from the Ministry of Justice?

    I was contacted by Spyrolix approximately 40 Minutes after the above mentioned VC.

  9. Did Galavance implicitly or explicitly offer to drop your charges in return for joining the APA?

    There was no explicit offer, but in the way of which the events unfolded especially stating that a plea deal would be offered while they where trying to recruit me to the APA literally in the same call and the time between the agreement being made and actually posted seemingly waiting until I was publicly a member of the APA extremely implied that should I have not joined the APA it would not have been offered or subsequently posted after it was agreed.
 
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?
 
Last edited:
  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.
 
The Prosecution would like to request a 48 hour extension. I had an alternating currents exam today which prevented me from working on this case. The prosecution apologizes for requesting it so late.
 
Omegabiebel said:
The Prosecution would like to request a 48 hour extension. I had an alternating currents exam today which prevented me from working on this case. The prosecution apologizes for requesting it so late.
Click to expand...
You have 24 hours from this post to provide your cross-examination questions.

I would like to remind the government that there is a considerable expectation of timeliness as the party that has filed this criminal case.
 
OverlordOfPeonys
  1. According to the case Azalea Isles v. LukeTheGreat. You, Luke and Spyrolix were all positioned in the bank at the time of the robbery on the 11th of January. Is this true?
  2. According to the case on the 11th of January, "Spyrolix arrested OverlordOfPeonys after the alarm was triggered. " Did Spyrolix arrest you?
  3. If so, why are you claiming that " No police sergeant Spryolix was not online during the arrest"?
  4. Is this alleged incident on January 13th separate from the Incident on the 11th of January or the Earlier bank robbery you were charged with on the 6th of January?
  5. If so, were you ever charged for the bank robbery on the 11th of January?
  6. Please look at the appended image from the case against LukeTheGreat and the timestamp, are you any of these invisible people?
Galavance
  1. Did you or did you not say in a public chat, that no one in high command ordered the disbarment of political opponents?
  2. Do you now admit that this was a lie?
  3. Did you, or did you not speculate in High-Command channels on how to suspend political opponents from their role in government? Such as Such as Wetc, Milkcrack, Fluffywaafelz or LukeTheGreat.
  4. Did anyone in high command suggest to you, to disbar people from running for mp? If so, what was your reaction?
  5. Did you at any point talk with Spyrolix about settling the case with LukeTheGreat, outside of official channels in the ministry?
  6. Did you at any point talk with LukeTheGreat about settling with LukeTheGreat outside of official channels in the ministry?
  7. According to the case against LukeTheGreat. OverlordOfPeonys, and LukeTheGreat, were both robbing the bank on the 11th of January. Can you please explain why LukeTheGreat was prosecuted requesting disbarment from running for office, and Overlordofpeonys was not?
  8. According to the testimony by Overlordofpeonys, you asked overlordofpeonys to report, to the police station so "you did not have to chase them down". Could you confirm whether this is true?
No questions for nanicholls at this time. Depending on the answers we might have follow-up questions, your honour.
 

Attachments

  • unnamed.png
    unnamed.png
    763.3 KB · Views: 5
In the Court of the Azalea Isles

Your Honor,
The defense requests your attention to the following objections regarding the prosecution's questions during cross-examination. Additionally, we move to strike any answers given in the meantime, pending your judgement.


OBJECTION SPECULATION
question 2 to Galavance:
This question assumes that the defendant has lied and effectively seeks an admission of guilt, rather than allowing the witness to provide an impartial response.

OBJECTION REPETITIVE
question 3 to Galavance:
This question was answered during direct examination in question 3 towards the defendant.

question 6 to Galavance:
This question was answered during direct examination in question 11 towards the defendant.

OBJECTION PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
question 5 to Galavance:
This question inquires detail on communication between the client and their attorney. This is a breach of the attorney-client privilege. This question will only be answered if specified that said communication should have been publicly expressed.

Thank you, Your Honor.
 
After careful consideration, the Court renders the following decisions on the Defence's objections:

Question 2 to Hamilton (Galavance): Objection is sustained. The question presupposes that the Defendant has lied, which improperly assumes guilt and compels an admission rather than allowing the witness to provide an independent answer. The witness is directed not to answer this question.

Question 3 to Hamilton (Galavance): Objection is overruled. While the defense claims this was answered in direct examination, cross-examination allows for revisiting testimony to challenge inconsistencies or clarify key facts. The Prosecution may continue with this line of questioning if it seeks to expose contradictions. The witness is asked to answer.

Question 5 to Hamilton (Galavance): Objection is overruled. Question 5 is with regards to a discussion involving a prosecutor and their supervisor. It is relevant to this case as the Prosecution has alleged prosecutorial misconduct on the Defendant's orders. You are correct that no questions regarding your privileged communication between Galavance as a defence attorney and client CANNOT be shared, however communication between a prosecutor and their supervisor is relevant to establish whether or not misconduct occurred. The relationship of a prosecutor and their supervisor is employer-employee, rather than client-attorney. The witness is asked to answer.

Question 6 to Hamilton (Galavance): Objection is overruled. The questions are significantly different in nature. Question 11, as asked by the Defence towards Hamilton, was with regards to a specific 23-minute phone call. Question 6, as asked by the Prosecution towards Hamilton, is more broadly asking about any further communication outside official channels. This could include the alleged phone call, but it might also include other communications or direct messages applicable to the case. The witness is asked to answer.

The Court hereby reminds the Defendant that they also have the right to refuse self-incrimination in a court of law, in accordance with the Constitution, and may invoke such right towards any question should they believe that their answer may incriminate themselves.


@Overlordofpeonys and @Galavance are reminded to respond to this case.
 
  1. I invoke my right against self-incrimination and decline to answer this question.
  2. I invoke my right against self-incrimination and decline to answer this question.
  3. As this question follows directly from Question 2, I invoke my right against self-incrimination and decline to answer. However, I have testified regarding the incident on January 13th, and I maintain that Sergeant Spyrolix was not online during this incident.
  4. I have testified regarding the incident that occurred on January 13th. If there are any questions related to a possible incident on January 11th, I invoke my right against self-incrimination and decline to answer.
  5. I invoke my right against self-incrimination and decline to answer this question.
  6. I invoke my right against self-incrimination and decline to answer this question.
 
1. I did not

3. I did not

4. There was no suggestion made to me specifically. The only thing that could be interpreted as a suggestion was the draft written by Spyrolix. I had, due to IRL health circumstances, overlooked the part of the draft about disbarment. When discovering it publicly through this lawsuit, I reacted in surprise. Spyrolix said he was tired at the time and made the mistake due to fatigue and expected a discussion before it was filed. I found this fair.

5. Spyrolix outside of the official governmental channels, but these conversations did not cause a significant influence on the case.

6. Yes, I have. I mentioned the settlement of LukeTheGreat's case during the voice call.

7. OverlordOfPeonys has not yet been prosecuted for the incident on January 11th. At the time, the Ministry of Justice was still investigating the validity of the evidence regarding Overlord’s full involvement and determining what and how many explicit charges he would face.

8. Yes, this is true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top