Case: Pending Azalea Isles v. BlogWorldExpo (2026) CR XX

[multiman155]

Azalea Isles, Prosecution

v.

BlogWorldExpo, Defendant​

Criminal Complaint:​

On October 12, 2026, within a two-minute span, Defendant BlogWorldExpo filed two civil lawsuits in the District Court against Prime Minister Robi Safran-D’Azalea: BlogWorldExpo v. Robi Safran-D’Azalea (2026) and BlogWorldExpo v. Robi Safran-D’Azalea (2026) CV 44. In the first complaint, Defendant claimed that the Prime Minister secretly appointed a 4,000-pound hippopotamus named "Gerald" as Deputy Prime Minister and that Gerald vetoed three bills by sitting on them. In the second complaint, Defendant claimed that the Prime Minister ran an unlicensed hippo-drawn taxi service that hit eleven pedestrians and fled into fountains.

At the end of both complaints, Defendant signed the required Verification affirming under penalty of perjury that the allegations were true and correct. Those allegations were completely made up, and Defendant knew they were false when signing them. Prosecution charges Defendant with two counts of Perjury under Section 7(a) of the New Criminal Code Act (NCCA).

Parties:​

1. Prosecution: Azalea Isles (Represented by Multi Man, Deputy Minister of Justice)
2. Defendant: Bloggy Woggy (BlogWorldExpo)

Factual Allegations:​

1. Between October 2, 2025, and October 9, 2025, Defendant litigated pro se as the defendant in Jebediah Crumplesnatch v. Bloggy Woggy (2025) CV 12. (Exhibit P-003.)
2. In Jebediah Crumplesnatch v. Bloggy Woggy (2025) CV 12, Post #14, District Court Justice Fauz Wolfe sanctioned Defendant for violating courtroom decorum. (Exhibit P-003.)
3. In Jebediah Crumplesnatch v. Bloggy Woggy (2025) CV 12, Post #14, District Court Justice Fauz Wolfe warned Defendant that noncompliance could result in Contempt of Court charges. (Exhibit P-003.)
4. In Jebediah Crumplesnatch v. Bloggy Woggy (2025) CV 12, Post #18, District Court Justice Fauz Wolfe sanctioned Defendant a second time for violating courtroom decorum. (Exhibit P-003.)
5. In Jebediah Crumplesnatch v. Bloggy Woggy (2025) CV 12, Post #18, District Court Justice Fauz Wolfe directed Defendant to the Court Library's Case Structure resources. (Exhibit P-003.)
6. At 7:21 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time (UTC-4) on Sunday, October 5, 2025, Defendant posted the following statement to the District Court in Jebediah Crumplesnatch v. Bloggy Woggy (2025) CV 12, Post #19:
   

   "The Court's guidance on decorum is noted and will be strictly adhered to in all future filings. My previous language, while factually grounded, was not appropriately framed for these proceedings, and I apologize for the unnecessary commentary. I accept the sanction and will ensure my future conduct reflects the respect this institution warrants."

   (Exhibit P-003.)
7. From January through March 2026, Defendant was the defendant in Tomasi Latutupou v. Blogy Wogy (2026) CV 07, concerning Defendant's alleged actions involving the Tonga Church. (Exhibit P-004.)
8. In Tomasi Latutupou v. Blogy Wogy (2026) CV 07, Post #4, Defendant's counsel filed an Answer signed under penalty of perjury. (Exhibit P-004.)
9. At 11:47 P.M. on Wednesday, September 2, 2026, Speaker Lee Funks opened the parliamentary vote in the Parliament and Cabinet Discord on Prime Minister Robi Safran-D’Azalea's government formation proposal for the 13th Parliament. (Exhibit P-005.)
10. Prime Minister Robi Safran-D’Azalea's government formation proposal for the 13th Parliament named Lee Funks as Deputy Prime Minister. (Exhibit P-005.)
11. At 12:41 P.M. on Thursday, September 3, 2026, Parliament approved the 13th Parliament government formation proposal by a vote of 7–0–2. (Exhibit P-005.)
12. At 1:07 A.M. on Tuesday, October 6, 2026, Lee Funks published an official press release in the #press-releases channel of the Parliament and Cabinet Discord signed as "Doctor Lee Funks / Minister / Speaker / Deputy Prime Minister." (Exhibit P-006.)
13. A search of the Parliament and Cabinet Discord for "deputy prime minister" finds no announcement replacing Lee Funks in that office during the 13th Parliament. (Exhibit P-006.)
14. A search of the Parliament and Cabinet Discord for "gerald" returns zero results. (Exhibit P-007.)
15. At 8:03 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time (UTC-4) on Monday, October 12, 2026, Defendant posted a civil complaint in the District Court in BlogWorldExpo v. Robi Safran-D’Azalea (2026), Post #1. (Exhibit P-001.)
16. In BlogWorldExpo v. Robi Safran-D’Azalea (2026), Post #1, Defendant stated the following in the Civil Complaint summary and Factual Allegations:
    

    "Civil Complaint:
    The Defendant secretly installed a 4,000-pound hippopotamus named 'Gerald' as the unelected Deputy Prime Minister of Azalea Isles. Gerald has since vetoed three bills by sitting on them."
    
    "Factual Allegations:
    (1) The Defendant appointed Gerald, a hippopotamus, to a position of executive authority without any vote.
    (2) Gerald 'vetoed' three bills by physically sitting on them. One bill is still under him.
    (3) Gerald has never taken an oath, though he has taken several naps."

    (Exhibit P-001.)
17. In BlogWorldExpo v. Robi Safran-D’Azalea (2026), Post #1, Defendant stated under Legal Claims: "(2) The Plaintiff has standing as a citizen governed by a hippo." (Exhibit P-001.)
18. At the end of BlogWorldExpo v. Robi Safran-D’Azalea (2026), Post #1, Defendant signed the following Verification:
    

    "I, BlogWorldExpo, hereby affirm that the allegations in the complaint AND all subsequent statements made in court are true and correct to the best of the plaintiff’s knowledge, information, and belief and that any falsehoods may bring the penalty of perjury."

    (Exhibit P-001.)
19. BlogWorldExpo v. Robi Safran-D’Azalea (2026) has not received a judicial ruling or sanction. (Exhibit P-001.)
20. At 8:04 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time (UTC-4) on Monday, October 12, 2026, Defendant posted a second civil complaint in the District Court in BlogWorldExpo v. Robi Safran-D’Azalea (2026) CV 44, Post #1. (Exhibit P-002.)
21. In BlogWorldExpo v. Robi Safran-D’Azalea (2026) CV 44, Post #1, Defendant stated the following in the Civil Complaint summary and Factual Allegations:
    

    "Civil Complaint:
    The Defendant ran an unlicensed hippo-drawn taxi service that has been involved in at least 11 hit-and-runs. The hippo flees the scene by submerging itself in the nearest fountain."
    
    "Factual Allegations:
    (1) The Defendant charged citizens money for rides in a cab pulled by a hippopotamus.
    (2) The Defendant holds no transport permit and did not install a seatbelt, a headlight, or a hippo.
    (3) Eleven pedestrians were bumped and the hippo vanished into a fountain each time."

    (Exhibit P-002.)
22. At the end of BlogWorldExpo v. Robi Safran-D’Azalea (2026) CV 44, Post #1, Defendant signed the following Verification:
    

    "I, BlogWorldExpo, hereby affirm that the allegations in the complaint AND all subsequent statements made in court are true and correct to the best of the plaintiff’s knowledge, information, and belief and that any falsehoods may bring the penalty of perjury."

    (Exhibit P-002.)
23. At 8:34 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time (UTC-4) on Monday, October 12, 2026, District Court Judge Iturgen "jotoho" Bolir issued an Order of Dismissal in BlogWorldExpo v. Robi Safran-D’Azalea (2026) CV 44, Post #2, stating:
    

    "Additionally, the Court upon analysis of the filing and the surrounding circumstances, finds beyond a reasonable doubt that this deficient civil complaint was filed in the full knowledge that it is without merit and with the apparent intention of making a mockery of this Court by submitting a joke filing.
    
    As such, the Court hereby finds the Plaintiff, BlogWorldExpo, guilty of one charge of Contempt of Court under the New Criminal Code Act §7.b, for willfully disrespecting the decorum of a court of law by engaging in actions that disrupt the justice process (wasting court resources on facially meritless filings). The Plaintiff is accordingly sentenced to a criminal fine of $500 and 10 minutes of jail time."

    (Exhibit P-002.)
24. On October 12, 2026, Lee Funks was the sole Deputy Prime Minister of Azalea Isles. (Exhibits P-005 and P-006.)
25. Prime Minister Robi Safran-D’Azalea never appointed a hippopotamus named "Gerald" as Deputy Prime Minister.
26. Prime Minister Robi Safran-D’Azalea never appointed any person named "Gerald" to a position of executive authority. (Exhibits P-005 through P-007.)
27. No hippopotamus ever vetoed any parliamentary bills in Azalea Isles by sitting on them.
28. The Crown did not veto three parliamentary bills during the 13th Parliament.
29. Prime Minister Robi Safran-D’Azalea never ran a hippo-drawn taxi service.
30. Prime Minister Robi Safran-D’Azalea never charged citizens money for rides in a cab.
31. Prime Minister Robi Safran-D’Azalea was never involved in eleven hit-and-runs.
32. No hippopotamus under Prime Minister Robi Safran-D’Azalea's control ever bumped eleven pedestrians.
33. No hippopotamus under Prime Minister Robi Safran-D’Azalea's control ever vanished into a fountain.
34. When Defendant signed the Verification in BlogWorldExpo v. Robi Safran-D’Azalea (2026), Post #1 (Count 1), Defendant knew that the factual allegations in that complaint were false.
35. When Defendant signed the Verification in BlogWorldExpo v. Robi Safran-D’Azalea (2026) CV 44, Post #1 (Count 2), Defendant knew that the factual allegations in that complaint were false.

Legal Claims:​

Azalea Isles charges BlogWorldExpo with two counts of the following crime under the New Criminal Code Act (NCCA):

1. Perjury (Counts 1 and 2). New Criminal Code Act, Section 7(a).

Section 7(a) defines Perjury as follows:​

(a) Perjury​

(i) Offense Type: Felony​

(ii) Penalty: 20 minutes jail time; $500 fine minimum; $5,000 fine maximum​

(iii) A person commits an offense if the person:​

(1) knowingly makes a false statement under oath or affirmation.​

To prove each count of Perjury under Section 7(a), Prosecution must show that Defendant (1) made a statement under oath or affirmation, (2) the statement was false, and (3) Defendant knew the statement was false when making it. Count 1 charges Defendant's false affirmation in BlogWorldExpo v. Robi Safran-D’Azalea (2026), Post #1. Count 2 charges Defendant's false affirmation in BlogWorldExpo v. Robi Safran-D’Azalea (2026) CV 44, Post #1.​

A. Defendant made the statements in both complaints under affirmation.​

When Defendant filed both lawsuits on October 12, 2026, Section 2(a) of the Case Structure Formalization Act and the Court Library's Creating a Lawsuit guide required every civil complaint in the District Court to end with a signed Verification under penalty of perjury. In both BlogWorldExpo v. Robi Safran-D’Azalea (2026), Post #1 (Count 1), and BlogWorldExpo v. Robi Safran-D’Azalea (2026) CV 44, Post #1 (Count 2), Defendant signed that exact statement: "I, BlogWorldExpo, hereby affirm that the allegations in the complaint AND all subsequent statements made in court are true and correct to the best of the plaintiff’s knowledge, information, and belief and that any falsehoods may bring the penalty of perjury." Each signed Verification was a formal affirmation within the meaning of Section 7(a)(iii)(1) of the NCCA. (Factual Allegations 18 and 22; Exhibits P-001 and P-002.)​

B. The statements Defendant affirmed in Count 1 (BlogWorldExpo v. Robi Safran-D’Azalea (2026), Post #1) were false.​

In BlogWorldExpo v. Robi Safran-D’Azalea (2026), Post #1, Defendant claimed that Prime Minister Robi Safran-D’Azalea secretly installed a 4,000-pound hippopotamus named "Gerald" as the unelected Deputy Prime Minister of Azalea Isles without a vote or oath, and that Gerald vetoed three bills by sitting on them.​

Those claims are false from top to bottom. Under Article 1(2) and Article 4 of the Constitution of Azalea Isles, only citizens may serve in the Cabinet and only the Crown can veto legislation. Even if you strip away the jokes about a hippo, the underlying factual claims in that complaint are still false: the Prime Minister never appointed anyone other than Lee Funks as Deputy Prime Minister, nobody took executive office without a parliamentary vote or oath, and three bills were not vetoed.​

Parliamentary records show that on September 3, 2026, Parliament voted 7–0–2 to approve Prime Minister Safran-D’Azalea's government for the 13th Parliament, with Lee Funks as Deputy Prime Minister. Funks was still serving and signing press releases as Deputy Prime Minister on October 6, 2026, with no replacement recorded in the 13th Parliament, and a search of the Parliament and Cabinet Discord for "gerald" returns no results. At trial, testimony from Prime Minister Robi Safran-D’Azalea and Deputy Prime Minister Lee Funks will further establish that Funks remained the sole Deputy Prime Minister on October 12, 2026, and that nobody named "Gerald" was ever appointed to executive office. Testimony from Sir Hadrian Valtoris (Senior Advisor to Legislative Affairs of the Regalis Overseas Planning Committee) will confirm that the Crown did not veto any bills during the term. (Factual Allegations 9–17 and 24–28; Exhibits P-001 and P-005 through P-007.)​

C. The statements Defendant affirmed in Count 2 (BlogWorldExpo v. Robi Safran-D’Azalea (2026) CV 44, Post #1) were false.​

In BlogWorldExpo v. Robi Safran-D’Azalea (2026) CV 44, Post #1, Defendant affirmed that Prime Minister Safran-D’Azalea ran an unlicensed hippo-drawn taxi service involved in at least eleven hit-and-runs, charged citizens money for rides in a cab pulled by a hippopotamus, and had a hippopotamus bump eleven pedestrians and vanish into fountains. Here again, both the hippo story and the underlying factual claims are false. As Prime Minister Safran-D’Azalea will testify at trial, he never ran an unlicensed cab service of any kind, never charged citizens money for cab rides, and was never involved in eleven hit-and-runs bumping eleven pedestrians.​

CV 44 also proves its own falsity on the face of the complaint. In Factual Allegation (1), Defendant affirmed that the Prime Minister charged citizens for rides in "a cab pulled by a hippopotamus." In the very next line, Factual Allegation (2), Defendant affirmed that the Prime Minister "did not install a seatbelt, a headlight, or a hippo." Both statements cannot be true at once: either there was a hippo (making Allegation 2 false) or there was no hippo (making Allegations 1 and 3 false). By affirming two contradictory facts under a single Verification, Defendant necessarily affirmed a false statement. (Factual Allegations 20–22 and 29–33; Exhibit P-002.)​

D. Defendant knew the statements in both complaints were false.​

Defendant knew these stories were made up when signing both Verifications. First, a hippopotamus cannot hold Cabinet office, sit on bills, or pull taxis into fountains. Second, Defendant posted both hippo lawsuits against the Prime Minister within two minutes of each other. Third, in dismissing CV 44, Judge Bolir likewise found beyond a reasonable doubt that the complaint was filed in full knowledge that it was meritless and as a joke filing. (Factual Allegations 15–35; Exhibits P-001 and P-002.)​

Calling a filing a joke does not excuse perjury, and the Verification's phrase "to the best of the plaintiff's knowledge, information, and belief" does not protect a litigant who invents fake events from scratch. As the Supreme Court held in Azalea Isles v. Dayvon Parentless (2026) CR 02, claiming that a fabricated submission was meant as a protest or a joke does not negate a crime: "The Defendant's belief that you can simply negate a criminal act by saying you are just kidding once you are backed into a corner is not a sufficient defence to make in a court of law. Exercising poor judgement does also not remove the actual intent behind the criminal act."​

​

What's more, courts presume pleaded facts to be true when screening whether a civil claim is plausible, which is why the law requires plaintiffs to affirm the truth of their allegations under penalty of perjury. In Biscuit Cookie v. Ministry of Justice (2026) CV 42, Post #3, the District Court explained that civil complaints are expected to "[e]stablish factual allegations by the Plaintiff on events which occurred" and "[p]resent a plausible logical chain of legal claims for how the Plaintiff believes these factual allegations interact with established law to create a claim to the requested remedies." The law in effect at all times relevant to the facts of this case, the Case Structure Formalization Act, Section 3(a), Step 1, provided that once a complaint is filed by the plaintiff, "A judicial officer reviews the complaint. If it is satisfactory, a summons will be issued to the defendant."​

E. Prior Contempt sanction in CV 44 and basis for the maximum fine.​

In BlogWorldExpo v. Robi Safran-D’Azalea (2026) CV 44, Post #2, the District Court summarily convicted Defendant of one misdemeanor count of Contempt of Court under Section 7(b) of the NCCA. That summary misdemeanor sanction does not bar prosecuting Count 2 for felony Perjury under Section 7(a), and Count 1 (BlogWorldExpo v. Robi Safran-D’Azalea (2026), Post #1) has never been ruled on or sanctioned at all. Neither the Constitution nor the Guiding Principles of Azalea Isles Law bars a felony prosecution after a summary contempt sanction in a civil thread, and Sections 7(a) and 7(b) cover different offenses with different elements: Contempt of Court under Section 7(b) punishes disrupting court decorum and wasting judicial time, while Perjury under Section 7(a) punishes knowingly making a false statement under oath or affirmation. Unlike misdemeanor Contempt, felony Perjury must be prosecuted in a criminal case under Sections 3(m) and 13(b) of the NCCA. If the Court nonetheless prefers not to stack punishments for the CV 44 post, the Court has full discretion at sentencing to credit the $500 fine and 10 minutes of jail time already served in CV 44 against Count 2's sentence.​

The record also supports the maximum $5,000 fine on each count. Defendant is a veteran citizen who had already litigated two civil cases in the District Court. In Jebediah Crumplesnatch v. Bloggy Woggy (2025) CV 12, the Court twice sanctioned Defendant for courtroom decorum violations, pointed Defendant to the Court Library's Case Structure rules, and warned of Contempt of Court charges. Defendant responded by promising the Court that its rules would be "strictly adhered to in all future filings" and that Defendant's future conduct would "reflect[] the respect this institution warrants." Filing two joke lawsuits on October 12, 2026, which broke a prior direct promise to the Court, justifies the $5,000 maximum fine on each count. (Factual Allegations 1–8, 19, and 23; Exhibits P-001 through P-004.)​

F. Jurisdiction, timeliness, and sentence calculation.​

Perjury under Section 7(a) of the NCCA is a felony that does not carry removal from public office, so the District Court has original jurisdiction under Sections 2(b) and 3(a), (d) of the Judiciary Act and Sections 3(m) and 13(b) of the NCCA. Both complaints were filed on October 12, 2026, well within the six-month statute of limitations under Section 13(d) of the NCCA and Section 28(c) of the Judiciary Act.​

Under Section 7(a)(ii) of the NCCA, each count of Perjury carries 20 minutes in jail and a fine between $500 and $5,000, totaling 40 minutes in jail and $10,000 in fines across both counts. Because Section 13(e) of the NCCA caps jail time from a single arrest at 30 minutes and converts excess jail time into a mandatory fine at $1 per second, the remaining 10 minutes (600 seconds) converts to a $600 fine, for a total sentence of 30 minutes in jail and $10,600 in fines.​

Prayer for Relief:​

1. Prosecution asks that the Court find Defendant GUILTY on Count 1 of the crime of Perjury for the false affirmation in BlogWorldExpo v. Robi Safran-D’Azalea (2026), Post #1.
2. Prosecution asks that the Court find Defendant GUILTY on Count 2 of the crime of Perjury for the false affirmation in BlogWorldExpo v. Robi Safran-D’Azalea (2026) CV 44, Post #1.
3. Consistent with Sections 7(a)(ii) and 13(e) of the NCCA, Prosecution seeks a total sentence of 30 minutes in jail and a total fine of $10,600 (comprising 20 minutes in jail and the maximum statutory fine of $5,000 on Count 1, 20 minutes in jail and the maximum statutory fine of $5,000 on Count 2, and $600 for the 10 minutes of combined jail time exceeding the 30-minute statutory cap converted at $1 per second).

Evidence:​

Spoiler: Exhibit P-001

BlogWorldExpo v. Robi Safran-D’Azalea (2026), Post #1

See attached file "Case_ Pending - BlogWorldExpo v. Robi Safran-D’Azalea (2026) _ CityRP.pdf" for archive.

Spoiler: Exhibit P-002

BlogWorldExpo v. Robi Safran-D’Azalea (2026) CV 44, Post #1 (Complaint)

BlogWorldExpo v. Robi Safran-D’Azalea (2026) CV 44, Post #2 (Order of Dismissal)

BlogWorldExpo v. Robi Safran-D’Azalea (2026) CV 44, Post #3 (Sentence Execution Notice)

See attached file "Case_ Dismissed - BlogWorldExpo v. Robi Safran-D’Azalea (2026) CV 44 _ CityRP.pdf" for archive.

Spoiler: Exhibit P-003

Jebediah Crumplesnatch v. Bloggy Woggy (2025) CV 12

First Sanctions Order and Contempt Warning, Post #14

Second Sanctions Order and Contempt Warning, Post #18

Defendant's Assurance to the Court, Post #19

Defendant's Formal Retraction and Apology, Post #25

Spoiler: Exhibit P-004

Tomasi Latutupou v. Blogy Wogy (2026) CV 07

Defendant's Answer to Civil Complaint, Post #4

Court Verdict, Post #35

Spoiler: Exhibit P-005

Governing Vote-13th Parliament., #parliament-voting, Parliament and Cabinet Discord (September 2–3, 2026)

Spoiler: Exhibit P-006

Press Release by Deputy Prime Minister Lee Funks (October 6, 2026) and search results for "deputy prime minister" in #press-releases, Parliament and Cabinet Discord

Spoiler: Exhibit P-007

Search results for "gerald" in the Parliament and Cabinet Discord showing "No Results"

Verification:​

I, Multi Man, hereby affirm that the allegations in the complaint and all subsequent statements made in court are true and correct to the best of the prosecution's knowledge, information, and belief and that any falsehoods may bring the penalty of perjury.

 

[BlogWorldExpo]

I, BlogWorldExpo, plead GUILTY to Count 1 and Count 2 of Perjury under Section 7(a) of the New Criminal Code Act, as charged.

I do not dispute the factual allegations in the complaint. The filings in BlogWorldExpo v. Robi Safran-D’Azalea (2026) and BlogWorldExpo v. Robi Safran-D’Azalea (2026) CV 44 were jokes, and I signed the Verifications knowing the allegations were not true. I waive trial and accept whatever sentence the Court decides. I would only ask that the Court consider crediting the $500 fine and 10 minutes of jail time already served in CV 44 against Count 2, as the Prosecution itself noted is within the Court’s discretion.

Verification:
I, BlogWorldExpo, hereby affirm that the statements in this filing are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief and that any falsehoods may bring the penalty of perjury