Hello, Guest
By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Case: Adjourned Azalea Isles v. Galavance (2025) CR 03
- Thread starter Omegabiebel
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2025
- Messages
- 13
- Thread Author
- #42
Your honour 12 hours is a ridiculously small window. The witnesses have been extremely uncooperative requiring us to be more precise in our questions and provide and upload evidence in support of facts that should be undisputed, this process takes time but is essential to proving the case.
Furthermore, since overlord is refusing to cooperate, we ask that you call Spyrolix to the stand to answer the other side of the arrest.
Questions for Galavance
Furthermore, since overlord is refusing to cooperate, we ask that you call Spyrolix to the stand to answer the other side of the arrest.
Questions for Galavance
- You deny saying that no one in high command ordered political disbarments. Can you explain your comments in Attachment 1 from the political forums?
- You deny discussing suspending political opponents in high command. Can you explain your comments in Attachment 2?
- On January 5th, you asked Venom to investigate PM Milkcrack for robbery and assault. Later, you told them to not prosecute Milkcrack. Why was this decided? Attachments 3 and 4
- On January 11th, you asked Venom to re-open the investigation into Milkcrack. What changed between the 5th and the 11th? Attachment 5
- You asked prosecutors to investigate Wetc for bribery based on a screenshot in Attachment 5. How did you obtain that screenshot?
- The bribery case against Wetc was quickly dismissed. Why?
- You also ordered investigations into Luke, Wetc, Fluffy, and Milkcrack but never mentioned OverlordOfPeonys, despite their three prior arrests for bank robbery. Why did you target these four MPs but ignore OverlordOfPeonys?
- On January 13th, did OverlordOfPeonys indeed comply with your request to come to the station, as you claimed, so "you did not have to chase them down"?
- Did you arrest OverlordOfPeonys for bank robbery on January 11th?
- Why was no case or criminal record filed for this arrest?
- You told the prosecutor to file charges against Luke ASAP. Why the urgency? Attachment 6
- Why was there no similar urgency for OverlordOfPeonys?
Attachments
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2024
- Messages
- 25
Your Honor,
As I was neither listed as a witness nor did I testify on my own behalf during direct examination, the prosecution cannot unilaterally add me to the witness list and subject me to questioning. OverlordOfPeonys has invoked his right against self-incrimination, a fundamental constitutional protection that the prosecution must respect.
Additionally, I request an explanation as to why the prosecution is presenting this evidence so late in the trial. Standard legal procedure dictates that such evidence should be disclosed at the outset of the case to ensure both parties have sufficient time for review and preparation. Introducing new evidence at this stage creates an unfair disadvantage and raises concerns about procedural fairness. Therefore, I seek confirmation on whether this evidence will be admitted in court.
Furthermore, as many of the newly submitted attachments provide additional context to previously introduced evidence, I ask the prosecution to clarify why this context was omitted earlier, despite their apparent prior access to it. Their delayed disclosure raises questions about the completeness and fairness of the evidence presented thus far.
If the Court allows these new questions and evidence, the defense respectfully requests at least 36 hours to review the materials and confer with the defendant before proceeding.
As I was neither listed as a witness nor did I testify on my own behalf during direct examination, the prosecution cannot unilaterally add me to the witness list and subject me to questioning. OverlordOfPeonys has invoked his right against self-incrimination, a fundamental constitutional protection that the prosecution must respect.
Additionally, I request an explanation as to why the prosecution is presenting this evidence so late in the trial. Standard legal procedure dictates that such evidence should be disclosed at the outset of the case to ensure both parties have sufficient time for review and preparation. Introducing new evidence at this stage creates an unfair disadvantage and raises concerns about procedural fairness. Therefore, I seek confirmation on whether this evidence will be admitted in court.
Furthermore, as many of the newly submitted attachments provide additional context to previously introduced evidence, I ask the prosecution to clarify why this context was omitted earlier, despite their apparent prior access to it. Their delayed disclosure raises questions about the completeness and fairness of the evidence presented thus far.
If the Court allows these new questions and evidence, the defense respectfully requests at least 36 hours to review the materials and confer with the defendant before proceeding.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2024
- Messages
- 123
As Spyrolix was not on the initial witness list, he will not be included in the questioning. That being said, since Spyrolix is the defence attorney for the Defendant, it is advisable that he may consider answering such questions in his closing remarks.
With regards to the evidence presented, if it was not presented during the discovery period, it will not be taken into consideration in the overall verdict. However, it may be used to help support in questioning the witnesses, as I believe was intended.
As for Galavance, he is asked to answer the questions posed by the Prosecution above. He has 36 hours to do so.
With regards to the evidence presented, if it was not presented during the discovery period, it will not be taken into consideration in the overall verdict. However, it may be used to help support in questioning the witnesses, as I believe was intended.
As for Galavance, he is asked to answer the questions posed by the Prosecution above. He has 36 hours to do so.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2024
- Messages
- 12
1. In Attachment 1 presented by the prosecution, I stated, "I don't believe anyone in high command within the MOJ asked for you to be disbarred." The prosecution alleges that I claimed no one ordered political disbarments. However, I must clarify that I have never used the term "ordered," and there is a significant distinction between being "asked" and being "ordered," which I wish to emphasize.
To address any potential misunderstandings, I would like to state the following:
a) To the best of my knowledge, no one in high command ordered nor asked for the illegal permanent disbarment of Fluffywaafelz from running for office. The charges of bribery carried a punishment of disbarment from governmental office, not permanent disbarment from running for office.
b) To the best of my knowledge, no one in high command ordered the illegal disbarment of LukeTheGreat. While a draft of the complaint was made, there was no order given. The prosecutor was not instructed to explicitly follow or replicate what Spyrolix suggested.
I cannot stress enough the critical difference between being "asked" and being "ordered," and I stand by my original statement.
2. I did not deny discussing the suspension of political opponents. To be exact the question was “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. .” To which I responded “I did not “.
Yes I did discuss the suspension of these individuals, but this was regardless of their political preference or position. They were being investigated for crimes (bribery and corruption) that hold disbarment from office in their punishment. What I did not do was speculate on the best approach to suspending them.
What is shown in Attachment 2 is the discussion surrounding the suspension of
Fluffywaafelz and MilkCrack. At the time, they were under investigation for bribery and corruption, respectively. In MilkCrack's case, there were concerns regarding his inability to be cuffed, and we were uncertain whether this was due to a technical staff issue or abuse of his position. This issue ultimately turned out to be a staff-related matter. Furthermore, the other charges he was being investigated for lacked sufficient evidence, and as a result, we decided not to prosecute him.
The primary reason our focus shifted towards Fluffywaafelz was due to the limited resources at our disposal. Additionally, we were still in the process of determining the appropriate legislative framework for suspending a Prime Minister and what procedures would follow in such a scenario as there is no Deputy Prime Minister appointed.
3. I did not ask Venom to investigate. I asked them to prosecute. This means that the police department provided them with evidence they could use in a court case.
I believed we had limited resources at our disposal—particularly as we only had a single Government prosecutor—and therefore prioritized the case against Fluffywaafelz, as previously mentioned. I had planned to schedule MilkCrack's case as well, but in the meantime, it was determined that the issue of immunity against cuffing was staff-related, and the evidence was ultimately deemed not credible enough.
4. The investigation against MilkCrack was not officially closed on the 5th. What is mentioned in Attachment 5 are cases where the investigation process had been initiated but had not yet reached a conclusion, whether through dismissal or prosecution.
5. This is confidential information within the MoJ. I do not see how this is relevant for the case, as the issue with wetc was resolved shortly after.
6. WetC wasn't prosecuted as it was a screenshot from a staff-related outreach program.
7. The high command handled each investigation individually. I assume the prosecution is referring to Attachment 5. The investigation into OverlordOfPeonys had not yet begun due to a lack of resources. The only names listed, alongside Fluffywaafelz, were individuals who, as mentioned earlier, already had ongoing investigations against them.
8. Yes, he did.
To address any potential misunderstandings, I would like to state the following:
a) To the best of my knowledge, no one in high command ordered nor asked for the illegal permanent disbarment of Fluffywaafelz from running for office. The charges of bribery carried a punishment of disbarment from governmental office, not permanent disbarment from running for office.
b) To the best of my knowledge, no one in high command ordered the illegal disbarment of LukeTheGreat. While a draft of the complaint was made, there was no order given. The prosecutor was not instructed to explicitly follow or replicate what Spyrolix suggested.
I cannot stress enough the critical difference between being "asked" and being "ordered," and I stand by my original statement.
2. I did not deny discussing the suspension of political opponents. To be exact the question was “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. .” To which I responded “I did not “.
Yes I did discuss the suspension of these individuals, but this was regardless of their political preference or position. They were being investigated for crimes (bribery and corruption) that hold disbarment from office in their punishment. What I did not do was speculate on the best approach to suspending them.
What is shown in Attachment 2 is the discussion surrounding the suspension of
Fluffywaafelz and MilkCrack. At the time, they were under investigation for bribery and corruption, respectively. In MilkCrack's case, there were concerns regarding his inability to be cuffed, and we were uncertain whether this was due to a technical staff issue or abuse of his position. This issue ultimately turned out to be a staff-related matter. Furthermore, the other charges he was being investigated for lacked sufficient evidence, and as a result, we decided not to prosecute him.
The primary reason our focus shifted towards Fluffywaafelz was due to the limited resources at our disposal. Additionally, we were still in the process of determining the appropriate legislative framework for suspending a Prime Minister and what procedures would follow in such a scenario as there is no Deputy Prime Minister appointed.
3. I did not ask Venom to investigate. I asked them to prosecute. This means that the police department provided them with evidence they could use in a court case.
I believed we had limited resources at our disposal—particularly as we only had a single Government prosecutor—and therefore prioritized the case against Fluffywaafelz, as previously mentioned. I had planned to schedule MilkCrack's case as well, but in the meantime, it was determined that the issue of immunity against cuffing was staff-related, and the evidence was ultimately deemed not credible enough.
4. The investigation against MilkCrack was not officially closed on the 5th. What is mentioned in Attachment 5 are cases where the investigation process had been initiated but had not yet reached a conclusion, whether through dismissal or prosecution.
5. This is confidential information within the MoJ. I do not see how this is relevant for the case, as the issue with wetc was resolved shortly after.
6. WetC wasn't prosecuted as it was a screenshot from a staff-related outreach program.
7. The high command handled each investigation individually. I assume the prosecution is referring to Attachment 5. The investigation into OverlordOfPeonys had not yet begun due to a lack of resources. The only names listed, alongside Fluffywaafelz, were individuals who, as mentioned earlier, already had ongoing investigations against them.
8. Yes, he did.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2024
- Messages
- 123
@Omegabiebel does the Defence have any more follow-up questions?
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2025
- Messages
- 13
- Thread Author
- #47
Your Honour, Galavance has not answered question 5 the way the evidence was gathered and the following order to investigate can be relevant to motive.
We request that they are required to do so.
We request that they are required to do so.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2024
- Messages
- 25
In the Court of the Azalea Isles
OBJECTION IRRELEVANCE
Your Honor,
The defense maintains that this question is irrelevant, as the defendant has already stated in their testimony. The prosecution is inquiring about how evidence was obtained in a case that was previously investigated and dismissed, having been determined to be related to an outreach program rather than roleplay.
While the prosecution argues that this may be relevant to the current case, there is no clear proof or evidence to substantiate this claim. They assert that the question must be answered to establish or refute the defendant’s motive. However, the prior investigation was concluded and dismissed before it could even reach court, and it was not made public until it was introduced as evidence in this case.
The defense fails to see how this could reasonably be considered a possible motive, let alone how the source of the report itself could be relevant.
Furthermore, I wish to emphasize the defendant’s statement that this information is confidential. Reports of crimes or individuals submitted to the Ministry of Justice should remain anonymous unless formally disclosed in a public channel. Breaching this confidentiality endangers the safety of the informant.
OBJECTION IRRELEVANCE
Your Honor,
The defense maintains that this question is irrelevant, as the defendant has already stated in their testimony. The prosecution is inquiring about how evidence was obtained in a case that was previously investigated and dismissed, having been determined to be related to an outreach program rather than roleplay.
While the prosecution argues that this may be relevant to the current case, there is no clear proof or evidence to substantiate this claim. They assert that the question must be answered to establish or refute the defendant’s motive. However, the prior investigation was concluded and dismissed before it could even reach court, and it was not made public until it was introduced as evidence in this case.
The defense fails to see how this could reasonably be considered a possible motive, let alone how the source of the report itself could be relevant.
Furthermore, I wish to emphasize the defendant’s statement that this information is confidential. Reports of crimes or individuals submitted to the Ministry of Justice should remain anonymous unless formally disclosed in a public channel. Breaching this confidentiality endangers the safety of the informant.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2024
- Messages
- 123
The Defence may respond to the Plaintiff's objection by explaining to the Court why they believe such question is relevant.
If there is no response within the next 12 hours, the Court will rule on the objection regardless of a response.
If there is no response within the next 12 hours, the Court will rule on the objection regardless of a response.
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2025
- Messages
- 13
- Thread Author
- #50
Your honour,
A 12 hour deadline is way too short. People have lives, people need to sleep. I request a 24 hour extension so I can at least do this properly, and so I can do this while not being exhausted.
A 12 hour deadline is way too short. People have lives, people need to sleep. I request a 24 hour extension so I can at least do this properly, and so I can do this while not being exhausted.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2024
- Messages
- 123
Your extension request has been granted. You have 24 hours, from this post, to respond to the objection if you wish. I emphasize that a response to the objection is entirely optional, and if you miss such deadline the Court will rule on the motion without giving you any sanction for failing to post a reply.
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2025
- Messages
- 13
- Thread Author
- #52
Your Honour,
The prosecution's case seeks to prove that Galavance selectively ordered the investigation of political opponents for personal gain. In pursuit of this, we assert that Galavance attempted to fabricate charges against Wetc, serving no legitimate purpose.
The context of how Galavance came into possession of this evidence speaks directly as to whether Galavance had a legitimate concern, or was merely on a fishing expedition to find any justification at all, for launching an investigation.
Furthermore, the defence is trying to argue they acted in good faith because Galavance stopped the investigation as soon as they found it was staff related. We content that the evidence has only been shown in a staff-related context and Galavance would have known this all along.
Whether or not Galavance obtained the evidence in a staff-related context or not is therefore of material concern.
The prosecution's case seeks to prove that Galavance selectively ordered the investigation of political opponents for personal gain. In pursuit of this, we assert that Galavance attempted to fabricate charges against Wetc, serving no legitimate purpose.
The context of how Galavance came into possession of this evidence speaks directly as to whether Galavance had a legitimate concern, or was merely on a fishing expedition to find any justification at all, for launching an investigation.
Furthermore, the defence is trying to argue they acted in good faith because Galavance stopped the investigation as soon as they found it was staff related. We content that the evidence has only been shown in a staff-related context and Galavance would have known this all along.
Whether or not Galavance obtained the evidence in a staff-related context or not is therefore of material concern.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2024
- Messages
- 123
After careful consideration of both arguments, the Defence's objection to this question is hereby overruled. The question is seen as relevant to the case because it relates to the accusation that the Defendant had allegedly used his position for political purposes. It is important to examine whether or not "Wetc" was targeted as an individual or part of a more broad investigation.
The witness, @Galavance, is asked to answer question 5 from the prosecution, regarding how such screenshot was obtained. An answer will be required within the next 24 hours or as soon as possible. This will be the last question asked towards the witness before the Defence has the opportunity to cross-examine.
The witness, @Galavance, is asked to answer question 5 from the prosecution, regarding how such screenshot was obtained. An answer will be required within the next 24 hours or as soon as possible. This will be the last question asked towards the witness before the Defence has the opportunity to cross-examine.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2024
- Messages
- 123
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2024
- Messages
- 25
Your Honor,
The defense respectfully requests an extension of 36 to 48 hours due to real-life health issues. I sincerely apologize for any delay this may cause in the trial. Despite my best efforts, I am unable to operate effectively in my current condition.
I will do my best to submit my questions before the deadline, but I wanted to inform the court in advance.
Thank you for your understanding.
The defense respectfully requests an extension of 36 to 48 hours due to real-life health issues. I sincerely apologize for any delay this may cause in the trial. Despite my best efforts, I am unable to operate effectively in my current condition.
I will do my best to submit my questions before the deadline, but I wanted to inform the court in advance.
Thank you for your understanding.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2024
- Messages
- 123
Your extension request has been granted. You have an additional 48 hours to provide any cross-examination questions accordingly.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2024
- Messages
- 25
Your Honor,
The defense hereby asks their questions for cross-examination
LukeTheGreat
1. At any point in time, did you ask Galavance for their reasoning regarding the alleged link between the dismissal of your court case and your decision to join the party?
2. At any point in time, did Galavance explicitly connect the dismissal of your court case to your decision to join the party?
3. Did Galavance offer you a settlement?
4. Did Spyrolix contact you with an offer for a settlement?
5. If so, during this conversation, did Spyrolix bring up the topic of you joining the party at any point in time from the offer of the settlement until the case was settled?
6. At any point in time, did you ask Spyrolix for a possible reasoning regarding the alleged link between the dismissal of your court case and your decision to join the party?
7. In CR-25-02 on january 17th (CEST), you stated and I quote: "I have taken the plea deal and wish to continue with it my response was due to the allotted extra 24 hours to respond was finishing and I did not wish for the court to decide on a default ruling". Why did you accept the settlement, but then attempt to continue the court case against you?
Ven0mSaint
1. Were you ordered by anyone in high command to include the punishment of permanent disbarment from office in the case Azelea Isles vs Fluffywaafelz (CR-25-01)?
2. If so, through which communication channel was this order given?
3. Before the filing the complaint in CR-25-02, did Spyrolix provide you with a proposed outline for the complaint?
4. If so, were you explicitly ordered to copy all punishments mentioned by Spyrolix in the outline?
5. Were you given the opportunity to provide feedback on this outline before proceeding with the filing?
6. Did you raise with anyone in high command that one or more punishments in the outline could be illegal?
The defense hereby asks their questions for cross-examination
LukeTheGreat
1. At any point in time, did you ask Galavance for their reasoning regarding the alleged link between the dismissal of your court case and your decision to join the party?
2. At any point in time, did Galavance explicitly connect the dismissal of your court case to your decision to join the party?
3. Did Galavance offer you a settlement?
4. Did Spyrolix contact you with an offer for a settlement?
5. If so, during this conversation, did Spyrolix bring up the topic of you joining the party at any point in time from the offer of the settlement until the case was settled?
6. At any point in time, did you ask Spyrolix for a possible reasoning regarding the alleged link between the dismissal of your court case and your decision to join the party?
7. In CR-25-02 on january 17th (CEST), you stated and I quote: "I have taken the plea deal and wish to continue with it my response was due to the allotted extra 24 hours to respond was finishing and I did not wish for the court to decide on a default ruling". Why did you accept the settlement, but then attempt to continue the court case against you?
Ven0mSaint
1. Were you ordered by anyone in high command to include the punishment of permanent disbarment from office in the case Azelea Isles vs Fluffywaafelz (CR-25-01)?
2. If so, through which communication channel was this order given?
3. Before the filing the complaint in CR-25-02, did Spyrolix provide you with a proposed outline for the complaint?
4. If so, were you explicitly ordered to copy all punishments mentioned by Spyrolix in the outline?
5. Were you given the opportunity to provide feedback on this outline before proceeding with the filing?
6. Did you raise with anyone in high command that one or more punishments in the outline could be illegal?
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2024
- Messages
- 123
The witnesses, @Luke201556 and @James Carrington, are reminded that they must respond to the Court within the next 24 hours, or else they may face charges for contempt of court. Both have been notified as of yesterday to respond:
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2024
- Messages
- 20
1. No, for I did not wish to risk Galavance pulling away my plea deal which would have left me fighting a legal battle I could not afford with no legal council or possibility of finding one.
2. No
3. Not directly no, this was covered in my first round of questioning.
4. Yes
5. No
6. I did not, for I did not want to risk jeopardising the plea deal because I of the above stated reasons in Q.1.
7. I was legally obligated to post my response to the court before the end of allotted timeframe to do so, which as the legal representative you should know, otherwise I would have been liable to be held in competent of court or have a default ruling be made against me. If Spyrolix had posted the the dismissal of the case sooner I would not have needed to post my response. But due to the stalling of Spyrolix on the posting of this dismissal I was forced to respond, these actions made by Spyrolix also strongly made me feel as if the plea deal was meant as a distraction so that the default ruling would be made with me being removed from my office and would have me prosecuted as in contempt of court as well as such I made sure to prepare a response in case the deadline came due, which it very almost did.
2. No
3. Not directly no, this was covered in my first round of questioning.
4. Yes
5. No
6. I did not, for I did not want to risk jeopardising the plea deal because I of the above stated reasons in Q.1.
7. I was legally obligated to post my response to the court before the end of allotted timeframe to do so, which as the legal representative you should know, otherwise I would have been liable to be held in competent of court or have a default ruling be made against me. If Spyrolix had posted the the dismissal of the case sooner I would not have needed to post my response. But due to the stalling of Spyrolix on the posting of this dismissal I was forced to respond, these actions made by Spyrolix also strongly made me feel as if the plea deal was meant as a distraction so that the default ruling would be made with me being removed from my office and would have me prosecuted as in contempt of court as well as such I made sure to prepare a response in case the deadline came due, which it very almost did.