Case: Pending Biscuit Cookie v. Azalea Isles (2026) CV 27

[jotoho]

OBJECTION: HEARSAY

Your Honour, these screenshots would constitute out-of-court statements which would be hearsay. We ask the Court to order the witness not to "dump" them all here.

Objection overruled.

Hearsay is indirect testimony of a nature that undermines the safeguards around witness examination.
However, In this case the screenshots sound like they might be relevant evidence on the relevant context of the Plaintiff's alleged admission.
As such, I will not prohibit their introduction into the evidence pool.

The Court prefers for evidence to be submitted with the Case Filing or the Answer to the Case Filing, however new evidence may be considered for admission until the end of witness (cross-)examination. No additional evidence will be permitted after that point to allow for Closing Statements to be made by the parties in full knowledge of all relevant evidence and testimony.

While I am generally not opposed to witnesses volunteering relevant evidence in response to questions addressed to them, given the witness referred to such action as "dumping" the screenshots in this case, I do have lingering concern that some of the images might lack relevance or otherwise be inappropriate.
As such, I will ask this time that Mr. Spezi please provide his evidence screenshots to either or both parties and let them decide what to submit to the court.
Should the opposing party believe that certain submitted evidence is inappropriate, they may file a Motion to Suppress Evidence.

---

With the Objection resolved, Defendant's questioning of the witness may resume.

Signed,
Hon. Judge Iturgen "jotoho" Bolir

 

[Aero]

Objection overruled.

Hearsay is indirect testimony of a nature that undermines the safeguards around witness examination.
However, In this case the screenshots sound like they might be relevant evidence on the relevant context of the Plaintiff's alleged admission.
As such, I will not prohibit their introduction into the evidence pool.

The Court prefers for evidence to be submitted with the Case Filing or the Answer to the Case Filing, however new evidence may be considered for admission until the end of witness (cross-)examination. No additional evidence will be permitted after that point to allow for Closing Statements to be made by the parties in full knowledge of all relevant evidence and testimony.

While I am generally not opposed to witnesses volunteering relevant evidence in response to questions addressed to them, given the witness referred to such action as "dumping" the screenshots in this case, I do have lingering concern that some of the images might lack relevance or otherwise be inappropriate.
As such, I will ask this time that Mr. Spezi please provide his evidence screenshots to either or both parties and let them decide what to submit to the court.
Should the opposing party believe that certain submitted evidence is inappropriate, they may file a Motion to Suppress Evidence.

---

With the Objection resolved, Defendant's questioning of the witness may resume.

Signed,
Hon. Judge Iturgen "jotoho" Bolir

INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

I am requesting a review of this ruling.

Hearsay is an out‑of‑court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The witness’s screenshots are out‑of‑court statements offered to prove the plaintiff’s intent. That makes them hearsay. The prosecution was required to authenticate the screenshots and show a hearsay exception or that the statements were non‑hearsay. The court erred by allowing the witness to introduce the screenshots without requiring that foundation.

 

[Westray]

INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

I am requesting a review of this ruling.

Hearsay is an out‑of‑court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The witness’s screenshots are out‑of‑court statements offered to prove the plaintiff’s intent. That makes them hearsay. The prosecution was required to authenticate the screenshots and show a hearsay exception or that the statements were non‑hearsay. The court erred by allowing the witness to introduce the screenshots without requiring that foundation.

Thank you for your appeal. After much consideration, this interlocutory appeal is respectfully denied, therefore upholding the decisions made by the District Court in this instance. As specified in §4c(iv) of the Court Reformation Act, a key requirement for appealing a decision mid-case is when "damage to their client necessitates an immediate appeal." Based on their appeal, the Defendant has not demonstrated that continuation of proceedings in the District Court would result in irreparable harm or damage. Therefore, the lack of explanation on potential damages does not meet the requirement.

Hearsay is defined as a statement, other than one made by the declarant (the person who originally said the statement) while testifying at the trial or hearing. I am unsure if sharing a screenshot would constitute a statement rather than simply constitute a submission of evidence. In such decision, I also recognize that the honourable Judge's decision acknowledges your concern, when he states:

As such, I will ask this time that Mr. Spezi please provide his evidence screenshots to either or both parties and let them decide what to submit to the court.
Should the opposing party believe that certain submitted evidence is inappropriate, they may file a Motion to Suppress Evidence.

As long as both parties are provided with this evidence, and it is authenticated accordingly, then there appears to be no foreseen future irreparable harm.

Should that change, and the Judge allow evidence to be submitted improperly and in a manner that clearly harms a party to this case, I would be happy to entertain an interlocutory appeal. However, because at this time I have not been offered any information that would suggest allowing the District Court to cause irreparable harm to one party, I cannot accept this appeal.

 

[jotoho]

Thank you, Your Honor.

In accordance with the Supreme Court's decision, Mr. Spezi is asked to present any evidence he wishes to introduce to both parties outside of court, not just one.
The parties may then individually choose whether to forward them as evidence submissions to the court, in full or in part.

As previously stated, the opposing party may file a Motion to Suppress Evidence if they believe any submitted evidence does not meet the legal requirements.

With the Interlocutory appeal resolved, the Defendant's questioning of the witness may resume.

 

[jotoho]

The appeal cost of $200 for the Interlocutory appeal under Court Reformation Act §7.b will be handled as part of the Court Verdict for this case.

 

[Phoenix Flamesong]

Motion to Submit Evidence

Your honor, the defense would like to submit evidence provided by witness Daniel Spezi, given that expands the conversation in which D-001 was a part of.

Spoiler: Exhibit D-002

Spoiler: Exhibit D-003

Spoiler: Exhibit D-004

 

[Aero]

MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

Your Honour, Exhibit D-002 takes place a full two minutes before the Plaintiff made the statement that is the subject of this case. It also takes place before the plaintiff rejoined the server. It has absolutely no bearing on the conversation that lead to plaintiff making their statement. Furthermore, it contains allegations that would be prejudicial and should therefore be suppressed. The Defense seems to forget that the matter before this Court is whether the plaintiff's statement is a confession, not whether or not the plaintiff is guilty. The plaintiff was auto-jailed, and is exploring their legal options.

 

[Phoenix Flamesong]

Response to Motion to Suppress Evidence

Your honor,
The statements in D-002 are very prevalent in the statement listed in D-001. Daniel Spezi states “I’m sorry Biscuit” which is a clear response to the plaintiffs statements in D-002, where they are pleading with the arresting officer not to arrest them. Upon the plaintiff’s return to the server, Daniel Spezi clearly continues this conversation.

The defense wants to give the full context to the court on this statement, considering it is the main statement being argued as a confession.