Case: Pending Azalea Isles v. Biscuit Cookie (2026) CR 01

[Westray]

After significant consideration, I have reviewed the Prosecution's response to the clarifications regarding the flexibility on the criminal penalty for Treason under §6(e)(ii) of the New Criminal Code Act, as well as the cited precedent in Azalea Isles v. OCG (2024) CR02. While the Court acknowledges that the case cited established a historic practice of allowing negotiated downward departures in plea agreements, statutory law has changed dramatically since.

The Criminal Code (May 2024) is fundamentally different from the current New Criminal Code Act (February 2026). While the 2024 version states the penalties as simply "removal from any government job" that enables flexibility, the 2026 version creates a fixed categorical mandate by stating "ban from all government jobs for 4 months."

As much as I'm sure many would like to consider this matter closed for the sake of the judicial economy, the Court is unfortunately constrained by the limiting nature of statutory law in this case. Unlike the fine structure of the penalty for Treason which grants "the discretion of the judiciary," the text for the employment ban does not include it. As such, the statute does not explicitly provide the Prosecution or the Judiciary the authority to alter the scope (the "all") or duration (the "4 months") of this ban.

The Defendant cannot be convicted under the terms of this deal. Therefore, the Court hereby rejects the plea deal presented in this case, and vacates the guilty plea entered by the Defendant that was only offered based on the terms negotiated with the Prosecution.

The parties are free to seek a non-judicial resolution outside of court and jointly request a dismissal. However, this Court will not impose modified criminal penalties that directly contravene the New Criminal Code Act. If the legislature intends to permit flexible plea arrangements for these offences, it must amend the law to grant explicit greater discretionary powers to the Judiciary.

The Court will enter temporary recess while the parties consider their options, and then resume in 48 hours from now.

 

[Westray]

Seeing as 48 hours have passed with no response from either party, this trial is back in session. We will resume to where we had left off.

As an answer to the complaint has still not yet been filed, the Court respectfully asks that the Defence provide one to the Court within 48 hours.

 

[BiscuitPlaysYT]

Answer to Criminal Complaint:

The Defendant, Biscuit Cookie, is charged with Treason (1x). The Defendant leaked the identity and purpose of a private Government tender designed to support the ongoing war effort abroad, to the State of Speidon, a foreign power. This act has irreparably harmed national security.



Parties:

Identify the plaintiff(s); defendant(s); co-defendant(s); and third party(ies) by name (usually copy and pasted from plaintiff’s section).

1. Ministry of Justice
2. Lysander Lyon, Co-Counsel
3. Biscuit Cookie, Defendant

Factual Defenses or Challenges:

Provide a concise statement of the facts giving rise to the claim, including the date, time, and location of the events in question if possible.

1. The defendant DISAGREES, the prosecution has yet to provide any information confirming this was sent in a classified government channel as they claim.
2. The defendant AGREES.
3. The defendant AGREES, though is growing questionable as to why two ministers who should have no involvement with military seem to be handling several military affairs.
4. The defendant AGREES, though would like to state a citizen of the Azalea Isles (Luke TheGreat-Fired) raised this to Biscuit Cookie prior to this being posted.
5. The defendant DISAGREES, the defendant hasn’t been presented any evidence supporting their claim.
6. The defendant AGREES
7. The defendant DISAGREES, the defendant believes the evidence provided does not present sufficient evidence to prove the ultimatum was result of any alleged actions by Biscuit Cookie.
8. The defendant DISAGREES, the evidence provided appears to only provide a letter signed by a Speidon official, however a signature shouldn’t prove one’s identity. Forged signatures are possible.
9. The defendant AGREES.
10. The defendant AGREES, this letter does state that a smudged document states the letters “B” and “I”, though this document is still smudged, this does not prove Biscuit Cookie’s guilt.
11. The defendant AGREES.

Legal Defenses or Challenges:

1. The defendant DISAGREES with legal claim 1, this shall be determined by the Supreme Court.
2. The defendant DISAGREES with legal claim 2, the executive nor legislative branch of government shall define how a constitutionally protected freedom or right shall be interpreted. The judicial branch is responsible for interpreting the constitution.
3. The defendant DISAGREES with legal claim 3, this will also be determined by the court.

Evidence:

Spoiler: D-001

Verification:

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

 

[BiscuitPlaysYT]

Your Honour,
The defendant asks the court or the prosecution what an “NPC Nation is”? P-001 is between this unknown source and former minister of urban development Asqii. However I’ve been pondering and reading several books, however have lacked any understanding of this concept.

The defendant also asks the court if the defendant can call this person to testify or whether the court can communicate with this person on the defendant’s behalf.

I also would like to inform the court of my counsel’s Leave of Absence and Subsidization
I will be busy over the next few days as well, I apologise in advance if I make any mistakes because of this.