Case: Adjourned Nanicholls v. Azalea Isles (2025) CV 01

[MilkCrack]

Your Honour, my understanding is that the standard deadline is 48 hours.

Assumingly in an attempt to speed up the trial, you have already denied the defence the opportunity to present an answer to the complaint moving straight to opening statements after the motion to dismiss. Disallowing us from presenting any evidence pre-trial.

And now you have chosen to shorten the already short deadline of 48 during the trial to 24 hours arbitrarily. Thereby disallowing the defence from even questioning witnesses?

Furthermore, the time on the forums is not accurate to the time zones, how does the court expect council to find out which time is which in the timezones?

How can the court expect the council to calculate the time, come up with evidence, write statements, and do research for every dispute within such an extremely limited timeframe?

How does the court expect new lawyers to get guidance and help to manoeuvre their way to the legal system when the timeframes are so extremely short and are changed arbitrarily without reason from 48 to 24 to 12?

I understand that your honour has multiple cases and wishes to move along a few but this should not be done at the detriment to the defence.

 

[Westray]

As for the missed answer to complaint, this was an oversight and error on my end due to both parties barraging the Court with various requests, and the Defence changing counsel mid-case. I apologize, however would point out that the Defence had the opportunity to answer the details of the complaint in the opening statement, but opted for a single sentence response to the Court instead.

Nonetheless, since you did not have the opportunity to present any evidence in an answer to the complaint, you may send any additional evidence you wish to present within the next 24 hours to this case. This evidence will be evaluated in the closing statements.

As for the witness questioning, we are beyond that timeframe pursuant to deadlines. It is expected that both parties will ensure they are responding to the Court within a reasonable timeframe. In the event that you are unable to respond to the Court with that specified timeline, you are asked to request an extension that will typically be granted on a case-by-case basis of understanding.

 

[MilkCrack]

Your honour, I would contend that 24 hours is not a reasonable deadline. However, I do thank the court for allowing us to submit the following evidence.

Attachment 1-3 evidence is taken from the case Azalea Isles v. Galavance (2025) CR 03 which this case is about as well.

Attachment 4 is taken from political forum channels clearly showing the deputy leader of nanicholls green party posting attack ads against the CDU which would include at the time the Prime-Minister, Fluffywaafelz and wetc.

Attachment 5 is taken from #Ads channel clearly showing the plaintiff posting an ad for people to join and run under his party, the Green Party.

 

[Westray]

Thank you.

The Plaintiff is asked to provide their closing statement to the Court. They may include a response to such evidence in their statement.

 

[nanicholls]

Your honour,

This case is about the right of an individual not to be implicated in a crime in which there is no evidence to support such claims. Let's set the stage once more, the day of an election a lawsuit is filed stating "On January 11, 2025, in the Ministry of Justice’s internal communication channel #High-Command, Galavance held discussions with Nanicholls and Spyrolix—both loyal APA members—about prosecuting political opponents."

Fast forward to the evidence disclosure in the case filing, there is not a single piece of evidence with my name anywhere on it. In fact your honour, not a single piece of evidence containing my name was produced by the prosecution in that case until the 2nd of February, 2 and a half weeks later.

Additionally to that point, I have yet to be subject to any criminal proceedings related to the incident, if I was involved as the defence stated I was, surly I would be subject to criminal proceedings by now.

This leads any mind to wonder, you honour, why was it that my name had to be included in the case filing when there was no evidence produced in that case filing that implicated me in any way?

In response to the defences "evidence" as shown here today, they made a point of including a screenshot which includes my testimony in Azalea Isles V Galavance.

In this screenshot I am asked "Did you participate in a discussion regarding the prosecution of Members of Parliament in #high-command on the 5th of January?" to which I responded that I did in fact.

This evidence from the defence includes many worrying contradictions.
1. In the Defences case filing in Azalea Isles V Galavance they claimed this discussion took place on January 11th. It did not as per their own evidence.
2. In the Defences case filing they claimed that "On January 11, 2025, in the Ministry of Justice’s internal communication channel #High-Command, Galavance held discussions with Nanicholls and Spyrolix—both loyal APA members—about prosecuting political opponents.". Yet I did not testify that I discussed prosecuting political opponents, I testified that I discussed prosecuting Members of Parliament.
3. In the Defences case filing they made the claim that I was a "loyal APA member" at the time of this conversation. As I testified, I joined the APA on January 10th, 5 days after this conversation had happened.

This evidence alone clearly shows a bad faith engagement and a fundamental malpractice by the Government attorney in Azalea v Galavance. The timeline was wrong. The dates were wrong. The language was wrong. And it was conveniently put out into the public sphere the day of an election.

Your Honour, not only was it put out the day of an election, only half the story was put out the day of an election. Again, no evidence including my name or implicating me in anyway, but the government attorney was more then happy to put me in the the case filing.

Onto the later pieces on evidence, where the defence attempts to allude to the fact that because I was actively campaigning for political office, what I did was inherently a political move. I would ask that the court not consider this ludicrous evidence, considering the inherent contradicting in makes. I could sit here and discuss the various attacks and negative campaigning done by the defence against me during the election period, but I do not believe that proves that they inherently had it out for me, until of course they made a case filing, including my name but no evidence.

Your honour this is a precedent setting case. The overarching question here is can the government make claims in a case filing without producing evidence from the get go. This is a slander case, and all evidence points to the intent to damage my electoral chance and reputation.

From the case filing, to the incorrect dates, to the lack of evidence, to the wrong timeline, to the constant implications that are backed by no evidence. The defence has made an egregious claim and on election day none the less. I hope that you will see this case for what it is, and side with the plaintiff.

 

[Westray]

The Defence is asked to provide their closing statement to the Court. Please do so within the next 48 hours.

 

[MilkCrack]

CLOSING STATEMENTS
Your Honour,

The state acknowledges the disorder in this case, partly due to an overburdened department. However, the plaintiff’s lack of clarity and evidence has been equally detrimental.

The reason this case was allowed to continue was that the plaintiff would prove that:
1) That the defendant’s statement was demonstrably false.
2) That the defendant knowingly made this false statement with intent to mislead.

The plaintiff complains about the wrong dates. The evidence we presented indeed was from the 5th of January and not the 11th. This was in reaction to the 2 screenshots presented by the plaintiff also from the 4th/5th of January.

We admit that providing screenshots from the 11th of January would have been more productive and are still prepared to do so if the court would allow it. But to be clear on the 11th of January, the plaintiff did indeed once again discuss with Galavance the prosecutions of these opponents.

So, let us not forget that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. It is up to the plaintiff to prove that the statement is demonstrably false. The plaintiff has been given full access to the chatlogs in high-command as per the judge's instructions and has failed to post a screenshot of the 11th of January discussion. They did not do so because it would have shown them once again discussing the prosecution of these people.

How can your honour, rule that the plaintiff has proven the statement to be demonstrably false by a preponderance of the evidence when they have not submitted any evidence regarding the 11th of January?

Furthermore, what evidence has nanicholls submitted that the "That the defendant knowingly made this false statement with intent to mislead."?

The plaintiff's entire closing statement assumes the burden of proof is on the defence, it's not. Should the plaintiff have submitted better evidence or facts, we could have submitted better evidence and facts in defence.

Furthermore, the plaintiff was not the target of the lawsuit and was simply a person involved in the discussion. The plaintiff was only included to serve as a possible witness, at no point did the state allege that the plaintiff acted unlawfully or unethically even.

The plaintiff assumes that because they were named as a witness this reflects badly on their reputation. This has not been proven either, the plaintiff presented no evidence that their reputation has been harmed as a result of being named as a witness. Despite that being an explicit requirement, in the anti-slander act. - (b) Damages resulting from slander are not presumed and must be proven in a court of law.

Furthermore, the state contends prosecutors have a legal duty to allege facts and identify witnesses. The government prosecutors and lawyers in general should be given additional leniency when it comes to statements made in court.

 

[Westray]

​

Court Verdict
Azalea Isles Civil Court (CV)

​

Case No. CV-25-01
Nanicholls Nanicholls (nanicholls) v. the Government of Azalea Isles

Position of the Plaintiff
1. The Plaintiff, Nanicholls, alleges that the Defendant, through filing the case of Azalea Isles v. Galavance (2025) CR 03, wrongfully implicated them in a discussion about prosecuting political opponents without providing sufficient evidence. The Plaintiff contends that these statements were false and slanderous.
2. The Plaintiff explains that since no case was ever filed against him, and this evidence was presented in a lawsuit where he was not the defendant, he did not have the right to defend himself.
3. The Plaintiff argues that the filing of this case close to the campaign period of the election proves it was politically motivated, and that the Defendant had the intent to slander him in order to benefit the party leading the incumbent government.
4. The Plaintiff claims that their right to a fair reputation, free from unjust accusations, was violated under the Constitution, particularly their right against government overreach.

Position of the Defendant
1. The Defendant, the Government of Azalea Isles, argues that the Plaintiff was not the primary subject of the case, and that their name was included only as part of the normal process of identifying witnesses and participants in the political discussion.
2. The Defendant contends that the Plaintiff has failed to meet the burden of proof to demonstrate that the statements made were false. The Plaintiff was involved in discussions about prosecuting Members of Parliament, and claims that no falsehood has been proven.
3. The Defendant argues that simply being named in the case filing does not amount to harm under the Anti-Slander Act. They assert that the Plaintiff has not demonstrated that their reputation has been negatively affected by the inclusion of their name.
4. The Defendant maintains that there was no malicious intent in naming the Plaintiff in the case filing, and that the case process was legitimate. They argue that the actions of government attorneys and the inclusion of the Plaintiff’s name were part of their official duties and not intended to mislead or harm.

Court Opinion
1. The Court notes that the Plaintiff has not provided clear, tangible evidence that the statements made by the Defendant in the case filing were demonstrably false. The evidence provided by the Defendant, while acknowledging errors in dates, supports the broader contention that the Plaintiff was involved in relevant discussions regarding the prosecution of Members of Parliament. Validity of such evidence can be challenged in the case at hand.
2. In addition, the Plaintiff has not provided sufficient evidence to show that the Defendant knowingly made a false statement with malicious intent. While the case filing included the Plaintiff’s name, the Court finds no clear indication of bad faith or deliberate intent to deceive the public or harm the Plaintiff’s standing. Not once in any case filing or official announcement by the government did they ever claim that the Plaintiff, Nanicholls, was guilty of a crime under the law. The only implication in the case filing was that Nanicholls was involved as a witness and party.
3. The Plaintiff has not proven that the Defendant otherwise caused reputational damage to them. While the Plaintiff does allege the proximity of the case close to the electoral period, they fail to acknowledge or explain how that impacted the outcome of the election, especially given that the Plaintiff won a seat to the parliament themselves.
4. As all are considered, the Court believes that Plaintiff has not met the burden of proof required to establish that the statements made by the Defendant were false, nor to establish that the statements were made with malicious intent. Therefore, it does not meet the standards outlined in the Anti-Slander Act to justify liability.

Decision
The Azalea Isles Civil Court hereby rules in favour of the Defendant, and this trial is hereby adjourned. The Court thanks both parties for their time.

​

Signed,
Hon. Justice Raymond West

​