Azalea Isles v. OCG (2024)

[MrFluffy2U94]

Your Honor,

I believe there was some miscommunication here, I was under the impression that you ordered the defendant to supply the records that I requested?

You stated the following : "The prosecution has requested a transaction history from the defendant for their in-game transactions and bank accounts between the dates of 9/14 and 9/16. The court finds this a reasonable request given the evidence and crime.

The relevant records are hereby subpoenaed and all entities with this information are ordered to comply with the prosecution's request."

I requested previously "First, I would like to request a transaction history from the defendant for their in game transactions as well as any bank accounts between the dates of 9/14 and 9/16."

What were you waiting on me for when you ordered the defendant to provide this?

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Please present your opening statement within 48 hours.

I am formally requesting a 48-hour extension until my previous request is addressed, and due to IRL obligations.

The evidence that I requested is a crucial part of this case and establishing if the defendant is guilty of the accused crimes or not, so I would like the opportunity for the court to review and reconsider closing the investigation (that was closed due to an apparent miscommunication or misinterpretation on my end with no warning) prior to moving forward with opening statements.

I also request that the court keep in mind that they afforded the defense much more leniency in regard to their response to the complaint than I was granted in the closing of the investigation, and I simply ask the same mercy is granted to both sides in this case.

 

[Westray]

The Defence raises no objection to the Prosecution's request for an extension. If they feel it is necessary to have more time to present their case, that is understandable given the circumstance. With that said, we raise some concerns about this exploration of evidence. We have already voluntarily provided this court with screenshots of messages which show no private interaction between the Defendant and the MPs.

Given such, at this time we urge the Prosecution to reconsider this case and to drop all charges against the Defendant. To merely suspect guilt without getting any substantive evidence before filing this case is not fair to the Defendant nor is it fair to this court.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

The Defence raises no objection to the Prosecution's request for an extension. If they feel it is necessary to have more time to present their case, that is understandable given the circumstance. With that said, we raise some concerns about this exploration of evidence. We have already voluntarily provided this court with screenshots of messages which show no private interaction between the Defendant and the MPs.

Given such, at this time we urge the Prosecution to reconsider this case and to drop all charges against the Defendant. To merely suspect guilt without getting any substantive evidence before filing this case is not fair to the Defendant nor is it fair to this court.

Response from the Prosecution :

Surely an experienced attorney as yourself can see that there is plenty of “substantive” evidence in the #ads that the defendant has posted to warrant an investigation and trial.

You have posted a partial response to my request, in that direct messages between the current parliament and defendant for which I thank you. However I specifically requested evidence of direct messages between the defendant and all “candidates” as this was the language used in the #ads. See exhibits B and C where the defendant literally admitted to buying “candidates”.

The entire purpose of a discovery and/or investigative period to a trial is to gather evidence through official means to be used in the opening statements, witness questioning etc. Given that there is no legal procedure set up for warrants, the investigation / discovery phase seems to be the best route available for obtaining this information legally.

To deny the prosecution any attempt at discovery is effectively killing every case the Department of Justice could put together before it even starts. There is plenty of evidence that I have previously provided to justify requesting these items.

 

[MilkCrack]

Your Honor,

I believe there was some miscommunication here, I was under the impression that you ordered the defendant to supply the records that I requested?

You stated the following : "The prosecution has requested a transaction history from the defendant for their in-game transactions and bank accounts between the dates of 9/14 and 9/16. The court finds this a reasonable request given the evidence and crime.

The relevant records are hereby subpoenaed and all entities with this information are ordered to comply with the prosecution's request."

I requested previously "First, I would like to request a transaction history from the defendant for their in game transactions as well as any bank accounts between the dates of 9/14 and 9/16."

What were you waiting on me for when you ordered the defendant to provide this?

If you have read the sentence behind that quote, it said "Should it be physically required that the defendants themselves take any action to assist in obtaining this information please report back with a detailed explanation of what would be required, so we can determine whether this would violate the defendant's right against self-incrimination."

My order was a warrant you can show to the necessary entities (excluding the defendant) to obtain the information you sought. I am not aware of the exact details of the logs, how they are kept and who has access. So it is your duty to obtain that information. That's the nature of investigating. Ideally, this would have been done before filing charges.

Because I understand the confusion, and our legal system is not as established I will grant you 48 hours to find out exactly what records you want and how to get them.
If you need a third party to do something, you have a court order to force them to comply.

If that is not possible and you need the plaintiff to produce something you need to write exactly what they have to do and I will determine whether it falls under their right against self-incrimination.

After 48 hours, I don't plan on granting any more extensions for the investigation, unless there is a very good reason. So please also prepare a version of your opening statement so you can quickly edit it depending on the results of your investigation.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Thank you your honor,

Seeing as how the Ministry of Justice does not have records of where citizens keep accounts, I would need the following form then :

What I would need is a list of all banks that the defendant has bank accounts with (either personal or business) so that I know what banking organizations to reach out to request transaction history’s from. The defendant is a prominent businessman and did not specify in his #ads where the alleged money came from for this allegedly “bought” candidates so it is imperative we have records from both to ensure that it is comprehensive.

If it is more convenient and saves time, the defendant can provide a full transaction history if there is a command readily available at those banks that doesn’t require waiting on any other parties.

Furthermore I would either need the defendant or staff to provide a transaction history for their in game balance. I’m not sure if in this server there is a /transaction command or not.

This should be enough to comb through to see if any further evidence or parties need to be named in the suit.

Thank you again for your reconsideration, I will be more diligent in asking follow up questions if there is any confusion on my end moving forward.

 

[MilkCrack]

I can't order the defendant to provide a list of bank accounts as this would fall under the right against self-incrimination. You can open a ticket with staff, and ask them if they can provide a transaction history or if there is a way to view the transactions.
If not, I am afraid we will have to move on.

We need to move on with the trial and the investigation has taken too long so in 48 hours, I want you to present your opening statement, evidence or not.

 

[Westray]

In the Court of the Azalea Isles

Motion to Dismiss

Your honour,

Given the lack of investigation that went into this case prior to charges laid on the Defendant, we respectfully submit to the Court a motion to dismiss at this time, based on the following reasons:

1. The foundation of this case rests solely on screenshots of the Defendant’s statements, made in a public and exaggerated context, without any corroborating evidence to substantiate the criminal charges.
2. The Prosecution has not provided a clear explanation of the Defendant’s intent. Specifically, there has been no discussion regarding the Defendant's potential motives for allegedly attempting to bribe candidates. Despite being allocated plenty of time to do so, the court has not yet been told whether the Defendant's motivations may have been political or personal.
3. The Defence has submitted evidence to contradict the Prosecution's claims, demonstrating that no direct communications took place between the Defendant and any Members of Parliament.
4. It appears that the case was brought forward without conducting a thorough investigation. Despite having ample opportunity, there has been no indication that the Prosecution interviewed or interrogated witnesses, or pursued investigations into other potentially implicated parties. Interviewing others requires no warrant or court order, and yet we have seen no indication from the Prosecution that the ever did that. If bribery truly occurred, it is reasonable to question why the focus remains solely on the Defendant and why nobody else was interviewed.

Thank you for such considerations.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

I can't order the defendant to provide a list of bank accounts as this would fall under the right against self-incrimination. You can open a ticket with staff, and ask them if they can provide a transaction history or if there is a way to view the transactions.
If not, I am afraid we will have to move on.

We need to move on with the trial and the investigation has taken too long so in 48 hours, I want you to present your opening statement, evidence or not.

Motion to Reconsider

Your honor, simply telling the prosecution which banks they have an account with in no way incriminates the defendant. It is not illegal to own a bank account, and it is my understanding that protection from self-incrimination applies to questions that directly incriminate them in a crime, which this clearly does not. I urge you to reconsider the implications that a precedent such as this could set.

Furthermore your deadline of 48 hours is extremely unrealistic if I have to open tickets and await responses in every financial institution just to find out if the defendant has an account, and then comb through the information given. If you are adamant on denying this request, then I am requesting a 96 hour extension to allow for a comprehensive investigation. Please take into consideration this puts our timeline right in line with what other nations allow for discovery.

This isn’t like real life where one can immediately track a social security number and find associated bank accounts. It requires some level of input from the defendant to legally and efficiently conduct an investigation.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

In the Court of the Azalea Isles

Motion to Dismiss

Your honour,

Given the lack of investigation that went into this case prior to charges laid on the Defendant, we respectfully submit to the Court a motion to dismiss at this time, based on the following reasons:

1. The foundation of this case rests solely on screenshots of the Defendant’s statements, made in a public and exaggerated context, without any corroborating evidence to substantiate the criminal charges.
2. The Prosecution has not provided a clear explanation of the Defendant’s intent. Specifically, there has been no discussion regarding the Defendant's potential motives for allegedly attempting to bribe candidates. Despite being allocated plenty of time to do so, the court has not yet been told whether the Defendant's motivations may have been political or personal.
3. The Defence has submitted evidence to contradict the Prosecution's claims, demonstrating that no direct communications took place between the Defendant and any Members of Parliament.
4. It appears that the case was brought forward without conducting a thorough investigation. Despite having ample opportunity, there has been no indication that the Prosecution interviewed or interrogated witnesses, or pursued investigations into other potentially implicated parties. Interviewing others requires no warrant or court order, and yet we have seen no indication from the Prosecution that the ever did that. If bribery truly occurred, it is reasonable to question why the focus remains solely on the Defendant and why nobody else was interviewed.

Thank you for such considerations.

IN THE COURT OF THE AZALEA ISLES
RESPONSE TO MOTION

Your honor,

This is preposterous. There is more than enough enough to warrant a trial for the remaining charges based on the screenshots alone. However I will outline my response to their concerns point by point.

1. The screenshots provided are more than enough to substantiate charges for bribery and incitement of corruption on their own, regardless of what the investigation brings. The point of the investigation is to ascertain whether attempted bribery and incitement of corruption took place, or if it extends beyond that.

2. The defendants motifs and intent are irrelevant in this case. Not to spoil too much of the fun to come, but as my opening statements will depict, the law does not take intent or motive into consideration or care if the defendants motivations were personal or business oriented. It’s pretty black and white. The definition of bribery in the criminal code states :

• It shall be illegal to attempt to or actually pay someone with a government job for personal gain or for the gain of a friend

If literally running an ad on a public forum offering to buy candidates is not an attempt at bribery then I don’t know what is.

Same goes for corruption. The criminal code defines corruption (or rather incitement of corruption) as :

Any person who attempts to get any person with any government job to refuse to fulfill their duty or use their position for personal gain shall be charged with Incitement of Corruption.

Again, I can’t imagine a circumstance that exemplifies inciting corruption more than literally running an ad attempting to “buy” politicians.

3. Again, the defense has only provided that they have not been in contact with members of parliament via direct messages. As I requested AND WAS DENIED BY THIS COURT, the defendant specifically stated they were buying “candidates”. Direct messages have not been released between all candidates or even the former parliament that was in power at the time the #ads were posted. Outside of partially complying with my evidence request, the only evidence that they have provided is their testimony saying “I didn’t do it”.

4. Just because I haven’t released any evidence to this point showing my attempts and or successes at interviewing or talking to witnesses does not mean it hasn’t happened. I simply initiated the process of LEGALLY attempting to acquire the remaining evidence I seek that required a COURT order by filing a COURT case. What is the point of having a discovery period and investigation period in a trial if it cannot be utilized? It’s simple, as this court has already stated, many of the pieces of evidence requested require a court order to obtain. Currently the only avenue available to obtain a court order is via a court case, which is exactly what I have attempted to do here.

As you can see, this trial SHOULD continue onward, and not be dismissed.

Thank you for your time.

 

[MilkCrack]

After careful consideration of the motion to dismiss, I must respectfully deny it.

With an explanation of the following points:
1. The court believes that the screenshots establish probable cause that the defendant committed the alleged charges and is therefore sufficient to move to trial.
2. The court believes that the screenshots establish probable cause that the defendant intended to commit the alleged charges, and is therefore sufficient to move to trial. Noting the distinction between intend (Mens Rea) and Motive.
3. The screenshots provided by the defendant were not sufficiently compelling to warrant a pre-trial dismissal.
4. The manner this case was investigated does not warrant a pre-trial dismissal.

 

[MilkCrack]

After careful consideration of the motion to reconsider, I must respectfully deny it.

While I understand the prosecution’s reasoning regarding access to the defendant’s bank accounts, the right against self-incrimination applies not only to direct admissions but also to any information that would require the defendant to appeal to the contents of their mind, which is testimonial in nature.

For this reason, I cannot compel the defendant to disclose the list of bank accounts, they may or may not have.

Regarding the extension request, I must deny this as well. The investigation has already exceeded the proposed timeline of 96 hours, and no substantial progress has been shown in the updates provided. Although I sympathize with the difficulties faced by the prosecution, the defendant's rights must come first, and further delay is not justified at this stage.

I encourage the prosecution to consider working with the government and the court in streamlining these investigatory procedures in future cases to avoid similar delays. (feel free to dm me after this case)

Please submit your opening statement by the 6th of October 11:59AM noon GMT + 2, at the very latest, or the case will be dismissed.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

IN THE COURT OF THE AZALEA ISLES
OPENING STATEMENT
Your honor,

The prosecution will keep this brief because our argument is simple.

The facts show that the defendant posted ads in the #ads channel blatantly and openly showing their intention to bribe politicians. This is shown in exhibits A through D of the complaint. As stated previously in the response to a motion to dismiss the definition of bribery in the criminal code states :

• It shall be illegal to attempt to or actually pay someone with a government job for personal gain or for the gain of a friend

Clearly the ads are an attempt to pay the politicians, and as we can see in the screenshot below, taken from the #ads channel, the intention was for personal gain.



The defendant clearly was advertising to government officials targeting parliament members to join the “OCG alliance” showing their intent for personal gain. The defendant even offers to forge evidence for those that accept.

These ads being posted in a public channel also meet the criteria for incitement of corruption as well.
The criminal code defines corruption (or rather incitement of corruption) as :

Any person who attempts to get any person with any government job to refuse to fulfill their duty or use their position for personal gain shall be charged with Incitement of Corruption.
Again if we break down the requirements, there was clearly multiple attempts via posts in the #ads channel to get government officials (notably parliament members and candidates seeking election were specifically named) to use their position for the defendants gain (as proven by the calling his “bought” politicians “OCGs alliance”).

So, the prosecutions case is pretty straightforward, but what has the defense provided? They have stated that the defendant “claims that such advertisements were posted as part of a strategic operation aimed at exposing potential corruption within Azalea Isles.The concept was that politicians would message the Defendant, and such messages would be forwarded to the public.”

However as we will see when we get to witness testimony, the Ministry of Justice was never notified of this supposed endeavor, in fact, the first mention of this premise was stated AFTER the defendant had a case filed against them. The Ministry of Justice does NOT support or condone any supposed rogue undercover investigations into corruption, and even if this story is true, considering no evidence has been provided to this point to support the defendants claims, this would be a gross overstep on their behalf.

Secondly the defense states “No money was paid and no action was taken.”. This is irrelevant when considering the charges brought upon the defendant. As stated above, the charges are brought forth of “incitement” of corruption and attempted bribery. Just because the defendants attempts were unsuccessful does not make them lawful according to the criminal code.

Next the defense states “The Defendant argues that the way the messages were presented show a lack of serious intent to commit any criminal act. The use of exaggerated language combined with the public nature of such messages show that the Defendant did not attempt to conceal or hide such messages. Instead, this was an intentional public provocation aimed at drawing out unethical politicians. While the Prosecution has provided evidence of the Defendant saying they are offering bribes, they have provided no evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Defendant was actually intending to follow through with their claims. To punish the Defendant purely for speech without corroborating evidence of intent or action, would constitute a miscarriage of justice.” As there was no communication with the Ministry of Justice prior to the ads being posted declaring their intent or desire to run an undercover operation, the intent in the screenshots is clear. The defendant sough to buy politicians and even offers to forge evidence to help cover their tracks. If that doesn’t show intent then I don’t know what does. But this is entirely besides the point as the law doesn’t say you have to “intend” to follow through with it, it says attempting to incite corruption or attempting bribery is unlawful. Period.

In fact the defenses’ own statements ADMIT guilt to incitement of corruption. The defense stated “The concept was that politicians would message the Defendant, and such messages would be forwarded to the public.” Incitement means that one’s actions cause another to do something. The defense admits that the intent of the defendants actions was to cause politicians who otherwise would not have been corrupt, to in fact commit corruption.

Your honor, as you can see from the defenses own words, and the screenshots provided the charges are beyond justified and in fact confirmed by the evidence submitted. The evidence from the defense at best, shows that their attempts were unsuccessful, and in reality just shows that no politicians reached out to the defendant through direct message. The lack of any additional relevant evidence by the defense speaks for itself.

Thank you for your time.

 

[MilkCrack]

Alright, thank you for your opening statement. The defence has 48 hours to submit their opening statement.

 

[Westray]

IN THE COURT OF THE AZALEA ISLES
OPENING STATEMENT
Your honour,

First the Defence will engage with the key argument presented by the Prosecution, and then we will examine some of the smaller points before providing our own analysis.

The Prosecution presents a very narrow interpretation of the events without supporting evidence. They tell a story to the court about how the Defendant supposedly went into a public channel, tried to bribe candidates, and then somehow "admitted" to such in the same public channel. How they came to this conclusion was purely based on messages sent in a public forum in an exaggerated way.

"The defendant clearly was advertising to government officials targeting parliament members to join the “OCG alliance” showing their intent for personal gain. The defendant even offers to forge evidence for those that accept."

Rebuttal: There is no evidence of this so-called "OCG alliance" actually existing, the Prosecution hasn't provided us with witness testimony, possible screenshots of a discord or location for this supposed alliance, or anything of the latter. This is because the alliance was never a serious thing, but rather an exaggerated remark made by the Defendant.

"This is irrelevant when considering the charges brought upon the defendant. As stated above, the charges are brought forth of “incitement” of corruption and attempted bribery. Just because the defendants attempts were unsuccessful does not make them lawful according to the criminal code."

Rebuttal: The Prosecution has provided no evidence of any attempts at bribery. An integral part of proving this charge is demonstrating the Defendant's intent and actions. Merely making public statements, without any evidence of a serious attempt to complete the act, does not satisfy the legal threshold for these charges.

"The defense admits that the intent of the defendants actions was to cause politicians who otherwise would not have been corrupt, to in fact commit corruption."

Rebuttal: MPs are public officials elected by the people of Azalea Isles who are in charge of key decision-making in government. MPs set an example for the rest of the community, and therefore they should know better than to commit corruption whether or not they have been encouraged to do so. To lay that burden on a citizen is to reject the notion of government accountability. Additionally, the word the Prosecution may be looking for here is not "incitement", but rather "entrapment," which pose different purposes. Entrapment involves creating an opportunity to expose wrongdoing, whereas incitement aims to encourage criminal acts. If the Defendant had truly intended to incite corruption, the approach would likely have been conducted privately and with more deliberate planning, not through a public forum.

"The Ministry of Justice does NOT support or condone any supposed rogue undercover investigations into corruption, and even if this story is true, considering no evidence has been provided to this point to support the defendants claims, this would be a gross overstep on their behalf."

Rebuttal: The Ministry of Justice has no requirement to be informed of all private or independent efforts to expose unethical behavior, nor is there any law preventing such. There is many instances where citizens may decide to conduct their own undercover investigations, such as investigative journalism. In addition to such, the Defendant committed no unlawful actions while trying to expose corruption.

Here is our own analysis:

1. Public Visibility:
This argument based on publicly posted messages inherently undermines the seriousness of the charge. If the Defendant had genuinely intended to engage in corrupt activities, it defies logic to believe that they would do so openly, in a public channel visible to all. Rather, the open and exaggerated nature of these posts supports the Defense's claim: this was not a genuine attempt to bribe, but rather a provocative strategy designed to expose unethical politicians.

2. Exposing Corruption
The Defendant sent those messages with the purpose of exposing corruption. The Defendant is an actively engaged citizen of Azalea Isles that has long stood against corruption in politics. This includes questioning possible loopholes in bills, demanding justice for murders, and holding politicians to account. The Defendant has attested that, contrary to what the Prosecution claims, he was planning to launch an investigative newspaper that would expose corruption and catch bribery. The Defendant also provided this explanation to the Prosecution in direct-messages after the filing of this case, and offered to involve them in any findings.

3. No Witness Testimony
There have been no witnesses to verify any substantive claims of bribery by the Defendant. In other cases, such as Azalea Isles v. Krix (2024) CR 01, the Prosecution was able to produce a witness that testified under oath to the truth, and yet in a case where there may have been six or more potential witnesses, the Prosecution has not offered us anything. In this court, the Prosecution hasn't told us about any interviews that they may have conducted with possible witnesses or anything of the matter. We believe the Prosecution is unable to produce a single witness because no crime was actually committed, and therefore no crime could have ever been witnessed.

While its understandable that eyebrows may have been raised at the Defendant in his public messages, the charges filed in this case are based on a misrepresentation, or at the very least, a misunderstanding of the facts. The Defendant's intention to expose corruption at the highest level should be applauded with praise, and not criminal charges.

We respectfully submit such to the Court of Azalea Isles.

 

[MilkCrack]

Alright, thank you for your opening statement. Did either side want to call any witnesses? (Keeping in mind my previous judgement on calling the members of parliament).

Both parties, please respond within 48 hours.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Your honor,

The prosecution would like to present the following evidence to the court.

 

[Westray]

Your honour, the Defence does not wish to request any witnesses. As explained in our opening statement, we argue that no crime was committed and therefore no witness to a crime can be found

As for the evidence entered into the court by the Prosecution with a list of businesses owned by the Defendant, we do not feel it is relevant to this case. According to the initial case filing, the Defendant is on trial for what alleged actions occurred between September 14 and 18. The Defendant is not on trial for owning multiple businesses strategically.

If the Defendant was going to commit a crime with any of these businesses, why is their surname or a version of such attached to each one (Wolfe, short-form: W)? Once again, the Defendant remains an open book. In addition to such, many of these businesses existed long before the alleged events of this case. They have no relation to such matters.

Thank you for your consideration.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Your honor,

The prosecution would like to call Elaina, the Minister of Justice as a witness to help provide some insight as to the defendants' intent.

There will be no further witnesses called as our attempts to investigate further into bank records and direct messages were either shut down by the court or were not fruitful. Additionally, the chance to question the candidates and parliament members, explicitly named by the defendant in their #ads was also denied.

However, let me be clear, the prosecution is still pursuing charges for the attempted bribery, and the incitement of corruption charges as outlined in the complaint, and detailed in the criminal code.

Furthermore, we would like to admit into evidence the following :

Spoiler: Evidence B

Spoiler: Evidence C

Spoiler: Evidence D

Spoiler: Evidence E

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Your honour, the Defence does not wish to request any witnesses. As explained in our opening statement, we argue that no crime was committed and therefore no witness to a crime can be found

As for the evidence entered into the court by the Prosecution with a list of businesses owned by the Defendant, we do not feel it is relevant to this case. According to the initial case filing, the Defendant is on trial for what alleged actions occurred between September 14 and 18. The Defendant is not on trial for owning multiple businesses strategically.

If the Defendant was going to commit a crime with any of these businesses, why is their surname or a version of such attached to each one (Wolfe, short-form: W)? Once again, the Defendant remains an open book. In addition to such, many of these businesses existed long before the alleged events of this case. They have no relation to such matters.

Thank you for your consideration.

Response,

Your honor, the evidence is quite relevant to this case. The defense brought up the mention in their opening statements that the defendant made these advertisements in an attempt to drum up stories as the defendant "was planning to launch an investigative newspaper". This piece of evidence shows that at the time of posting the ads, and in the 24 days since the first ad was posted has not registered a business that runs an investigative newspaper. This is crucial evidence in helping to counter the defendants claim towards intent, as if that was their intent, then surely, they would have established a legal entity to post these ads on behalf of prior to doing so.