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

[Aero]

no, the laughing was a response to DK when he mentioned that he still can be charged for other crimes so if he contests he still would go to jail either way, the "im sorry biscuit, but its my duty" was referring to the fact that i was about to frisk him for the possession of restricted items.

Exhibit D-004 shows an exchange between you and then-Minister Karaca where he tells you to "Frisk his ass", to which you ask "want me to go to jail then?"

This exchange took place after you told MP Cookie "im sorry biscuit, but its my duty"

If you were already about to frisk MP Cookie:

1. Why did then-Minister Karaca have to instruct you to do it?
2. Why did you ask if he wanted you to go to the jail in response to then-Minister Karaca instructing you to frisk MP Cookie?

 

[jotoho]

Exhibit D-004 shows an exchange between you and then-Minister Karaca where he tells you to "Frisk his ass", to which you ask "want me to go to jail then?"

This exchange took place after you told MP Cookie "im sorry biscuit, but its my duty"

If you were already about to frisk MP Cookie:

1. Why did then-Minister Karaca have to instruct you to do it?
2. Why did you ask if he wanted you to go to the jail in response to then-Minister Karaca instructing you to frisk MP Cookie?

The 48 hours allotted for the Plaintiff's questioning of the witness has expired more than 12 hours ago.
These latest two questions are struck from the record, the witness does not have to answer them.

Cross-Examination is hereby concluded. The witness, Mr. Spezi, is dismissed.

The Plaintiff is asked to please present their Closing Statement within 48 hours, beginning now.

 

[Aero]

MOTION FOR EXTENSION

Your Honour, we move the Court to extend our time and allow our final two questions to be asked.

 

[jotoho]

MOTION FOR EXTENSION

Your Honour, we move the Court to extend our time and allow our final two questions to be asked.

1. The Motion for Extension lacks any justification for requesting an extension, beyond the Plaintiff's convenience.
2. The Motion for Extension was only filed after cross-examination was already closed and the witness dismissed.
3. Plaintiff appears to have made inefficient use of time already granted, by asking questions of the witness one at a time, without obvious or stated reason, and by waiting until approximately 22.5 hours after the opening of cross-examination before starting to ask their questions.
4. Summoning back an already dismissed witness without extraordinary reason would be an abuse of judicial power.

For these reasons, the Court respectfully denies the Motion for Extension.
The Plaintiff is asked to submit their Closing Statement within the previously stated time-frame.