Hello, Guest

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.
What's new

Case: Pending Aero Nox v. Azalea Isles (2025) CV 15

Robidemon2

Robidemon2

New member
Robidemon2
Robidemon2
Citizen
Joined
Nov 8, 2025
Messages
8
Aero Nox, Plaintiff
v.
Government of Azalea, Defendant



Civil Complaint​


Plaintiff Aero Nox brings this complaint against the Government of Azalea for violating constitutionally protected voting rights by enforcing the Voter Registration Act in a manner that disenfranchises eligible citizens. The Government has denied voting rights to citizens who meet all constitutional requirements by refusing to accept as valid for this general initial voter registrations during the electoral period, incorrectly labeling such registrations as impermissible "changes" of residence. This misinterpretation contradicts both statutory language and constitutional authority.



Parties​


Plaintiff​


  • Aero Nox

Defendant​


  • Government of Azalea

​



Factual Allegations​


  1. The Constitution of Azalea establishes the qualifications for voting, requiring that a citizen:
    • (a) Have at least twelve (12) cumulative hours of playtime;
    • (b) Have at least five (5) hours of monthly playtime; and
    • (c) Live in the district in which they are voting.
  2. Plaintiff Aero Nox meets all constitutional qualifications for voting.
  3. Numerous citizens similarly meet these constitutional requirements.
  4. Despite this, the Government of Azalea has denied Aero Nox and others the right to vote in the upcoming general election.
  5. The Government bases its justification on the Voter Registration Act, which requires citizens to submit a voter registration form including their legal name, primary residence, documents, and party affiliation.
  6. The Government claims that citizens cannot "change" their residence during an electoral period.
  7. Aero Nox, along with affected citizens, did not have a pre-existing voter registration on file prior to the electoral period.
  8. Submitting a residence for the first time is not a "change" it is an initial registration, which the Voter Registration Act requires.
  9. A "change" necessarily requires a pre-existing entry. The citizens in question never had one; therefore, no "change" occurred. The lack of an entry is not an entry in of itself.
  10. The Government’s interpretation creates an additional voting qualification not present in the Constitution or in the Voter Registration Act itself, : having a pre-registered residence before the electoral period begins.
  11. This additional requirement unlawfully restricts voting rights and contradicts the constitutional guarantee.
  12. By refusing to accept initial registrations, the Government is denying constitutionally eligible citizens their right to vote.


Legal Claims​


  1. Violation of Constitutional Voting Rights
    • The Government's refusal to accept initial voter registrations during the electoral period violates the Constitution by imposing restrictions absent from constitutional text.
  2. Unlawful Interpretation of the Voter Registration Act
    • The Government incorrectly interprets initial registrations as "changes," contrary to statutory intent and basic definitional logic.
  3. Unconstitutional Disenfranchisement
    • The Government is denying the right to vote to citizens who meet all constitutional qualifications based solely on a misapplication of statutory language.


Prayer for Relief​


The plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant the following relief:


  1. A declaration that initial voter registrations are not "changes" and may not be prohibited during the electoral period.
  2. An order requiring the Government to immediately recognize and process all voter registrations from constitutionally eligible citizens.
  3. Any other relief the Court deems appropriate and just.



Verification​


I,Robidemon2, hereby affirm that the allegations in the complaint AND all subsequent statements made in court are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, and that any falsehoods may bring the penalty of perjury.

1763158253268.png
 
Motion for Injunction


Plaintiff hereby moves the Court of the Azalea Isles for an injunction to prevent ongoing constitutional violations resulting from the Government of Azalea’s enforcement of the Voter Registration Act.



The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court issue one of the following forms of relief:

A temporary injunction striking or suspending the section of the Voter Registration Act that prohibits voter residence updates during the electoral period, but only as applied to initial voter registrations for citizens who did not previously have a registered residence.
Immediate suspension of this section is required to prevent further harm, as the Plaintiff’s rights are being violated continuously.



Alternatively, an injunction halting or pausing the current election until voter registrations for constitutionally eligible citizens including Aero Nox are properly accepted and processed.



Continuing the election while Aero Nox remains excluded causes ongoing and compounding harm, as each passing day of the electoral period further entrenches his inability to meaningfully participate.
Aero Nox is prevented from voting, participating in campaign activity as a recognized voter, influencing candidate selection, or being counted as part of his district’s electorate.
Every procedural step of the election conducted without his lawful inclusion ,such as candidate qualification, campaigning, polling preparation, and vote tallying, causes irreversible damage that cannot be undone once the election concludes.
Therefore, halting the election is necessary to prevent further violation of Aero Nox’s constitutional rights and to preserve the fairness and legitimacy of the electoral process.
 
WRIT OF SUMMONS

Azalea Isles District Court

Case No. CV-25-14​

Plaintiff: Aero Nox
Defendant: Azalea Isles

The Defendant is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Aero Nox v. Azalea Isles. Failure to do so within 48 hours may result in a default judgement. The Court asks both parties to familiarize themselves with the relevant court documents, appropriate formats, and the law, especially as referenced in the complaint. Please ensure all court orders are followed.

Additionally, the temporary injunction is denied for now, and will not be considered until the Plaintiff provides evidence of their allegations. Despite the fact the filing was already submitted, I will show grace and allow you 24 hours to submit evidence relevant to your claim.


Signed,
District Court Justice Fauz Wolfe
 
Motion to Dismiss

Your Honor,
the Constitution is quite clear here. As amended by the Electoral Reform Amendment, the Voter Registration section of the Constitution reads: “Individuals may be required by the Azalea Isles Government to complete a voter registration process in order to qualify to run for office, and to vote.”The Voter Registration Act fulfills this provision of the Constitution by establishing a clear voter registration process.
A new primary residence is a change in status, regardless of whether one was on file before, and the Constitution gives Parliament and the Azalea Isles Government the power to establish and manage this process. It may be reformed legislatively, but the Constitution, as amended, is clear that the Government is in charge of managing the process. As such, we motion for dismissal of the case.
 
Your Honor, the Plaintiff asks to respond to the defendants motion to dismiss.
 
fauzfauzfauz said:
WRIT OF SUMMONS

Azalea Isles District Court

Case No. CV-25-14​

Plaintiff: Aero Nox
Defendant: Azalea Isles

The Defendant is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Aero Nox v. Azalea Isles. Failure to do so within 48 hours may result in a default judgement. The Court asks both parties to familiarize themselves with the relevant court documents, appropriate formats, and the law, especially as referenced in the complaint. Please ensure all court orders are followed.

Additionally, the temporary injunction is denied for now, and will not be considered until the Plaintiff provides evidence of their allegations. Despite the fact the filing was already submitted, I will show grace and allow you 24 hours to submit evidence relevant to your claim.


Signed,
District Court Justice Fauz Wolfe
Click to expand...
Your Honor,
Plaintiff Aeronox4 was outside the voting registration period thus does not qualify as a voter, the reason does not qualify as a voter is because of a wrong interpretation, in my eyes, of the Voter Registration Act that states that "primary residences cannot be changed once the electoral period begins". this interpretation would overstep the delegatory powers given by the constitution . While I am unable to prove damages that will occur Post hoc I am able without a shadow of a doubt state that his voter registration has not been accepted for this general election. In terms of damages we are looking at the violation of his rights not only in the constitution but I would even argue in the Voter Registration Act itself.


1763251352435.png
 
Thank you for the addition. The Court is going to authorize the temporary injunction as followed: The upcoming by election shall be paused pending the verdict of this case.

The halt is only to last until a verdict has been reached in the interest of justice, before the alleged damages become irreversible, and such that both sides can sufficiently argue their case. The Court will not authorize any additional relief aligning with what the Plaintiff prays for in the interest of the Defendant, nor will support the Defendant’s claims, pending a verdict. Given the low stake nature of the by-election, the Court deems this to be the best path to take in order to circumnavigate any additional complications.

The Motion to Dismiss is also denied, and I will also like to note the Plaintiff does not have to ask for permission to respond to a motion in my court. If either party would like to contest the contents of the motion before one is ruled on, they are welcome to do so. (And of course, is welcome to file a motion to reconsider should a party be unhappy with a ruling)
 
Can you state your interest in the matter, or to either the Plaintiff or the Defendant? Will you be able to affirm that any and all statements made in this court are true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief, and that any falsehoods may bring the penalty of perjury?
 
Thank you for the response your honor,
One of my personal friends who is not the plaintiff, is affected by the current regulations for voter registration. I would like to offer both my thoughts on the case and the circumstances that restricted her from performing her, in my opinion, constitutional right to vote. I can affirm that all statements I make are true and correct to the best of my information.
 
Motion to Substitute Council

Your Honor,

regarding the fact that there are now multiple cases in which the Ministry of Justice is involved in that require serious efforts, I will give up council to Lysander Lyon.
 
You may file your amicus brief, Mr. Anthony, and thank you for the verification. My last ask is that your statements remain factual.

Mr. Brehmer, thank you for notifying me and for your time in my Court.

Mr. Lyon, welcome, and please let me know if you need additional time to process the case file and submit a response. Just please do so in a timely manner.


Expedited Trial Notice

Due to the temporary injunction that is currently halting the election, I politely ask that all responses are submitted within a 24 hour period rather than a 48. Please indicate at any point if an extension is needed; it will be granted as I understand IRL is a priority. (Additionally, if the Defendant needs more than 24 hours to respond to the case file, that is allowed, given the substitution. I expect subsequent statements to follow this timeframe.) In turn, I will make an effort to ensure my responses are within 24 hours as well.
 
Thank you, Your Honor.

Prior to responding to the complaint, I must unfortunately make several important motions and objections.


Motion to Strike
The Plaintiff's listed Factual Allegations 8-12 are not general facts (date, time, location) or information. They are legal claims and arguments that must be litigated in this court.


Motion for Reconsideration
Your Honor, we ask you revoke the injunction on the election. First and foremost, the defense is unclear what Act of Parliament this court is deriving authority to issue an order pausing an election. Temporary injunctions, as listed under the Court Orders, Powers, and Judgments tab on the forums, are "issued to maintain the status quo while a legal dispute is ongoing." The status quo in this case is that Aero Nox did not complete his voter registration in the proper time.

Secondly, Your Honor has issued this injunction in violation of the Court Orders Procedure Act. The Defendant was not provided an opportunity to issue a rebuttal to the (improperly-named) motion filed by the Plaintiff. As such, we must request the immediate reversal of your decision, as it was issued without giving us an opportunity to respond and is therefore in direct violation of the law.


Motion to Suppress Evidence
If the Plaintiff wishes to utilize testimony of an individual, they should call that individual as a witness. Allowing the Plaintiff to ask questions in private and post them in the court thread as evidence gives the Defendant no opportunity to conduct a proper cross-examination, inherently biasing the trial. Therefore, we request the screenshot provided be suppressed and not considered by the court. If the Plaintiff wishes to use such testimony as evidence, they should be required to call witnesses as all prior cases have had to do, so that the defense has a fair and proper opportunity to cross-examine any testimony given by individuals.


Motion for Reconsideration
Your Honor ruled against our Motion to Dismiss without providing any explanation. The Constitution clearly delegates the authority to manage and regulate Voter Registration to the Government of the Azalea Isles, which I can personally confirm as the author of the constitutional amendment establishing this power is the intended interpretation. We must respectfully ask again that this case be dismissed.


Objection to Amicus Brief
This is a trial case, Your Honor. As clearly stated in "The Judiciary" forum page, under the "Judiciary" forum folder, "Trial cases shall be between a plaintiff...; a defendant...; and various third-parties affiliated with the case in some form (...whom are named in the case for reasons designated by a plaintiff or defendant.)" (emphasis added).

The individual requesting the ability to file an Amicus Brief, which is only legally allowed in appellate cases (and this is not an appellate case, no decision is being appealed here), has not been named by either the Plaintiff or the Defendant as a party to the case. The Judiciary page explicitly states who may participate as a party to a trial case, and unaffiliated individuals with an interest in the case are only explicitly allowed under the appellate section.

As such, we must ask that you reverse your decision to allow the presentation of an amicus brief, as they are not allowed for non-appellate cases.
 
fauzfauzfauz said:
You may file your amicus brief, Mr. Anthony, and thank you for the verification. My last ask is that your statements remain factual.

Mr. Brehmer, thank you for notifying me and for your time in my Court.

Mr. Lyon, welcome, and please let me know if you need additional time to process the case file and submit a response. Just please do so in a timely manner.


Expedited Trial Notice

Due to the temporary injunction that is currently halting the election, I politely ask that all responses are submitted within a 24 hour period rather than a 48. Please indicate at any point if an extension is needed; it will be granted as I understand IRL is a priority. (Additionally, if the Defendant needs more than 24 hours to respond to the case file, that is allowed, given the substitution. I expect subsequent statements to follow this timeframe.) In turn, I will make an effort to ensure my responses are within 24 hours as well.
Click to expand...
My name is Anthony_org, I am not affiliated with the Plaintiff, but a personal friend of mine has been directly affected by the Government’s current interpretation of voter registration regulations, as she was unable to fulfill what I believe to be her constitutional right to vote.

I have a significant interest in the Court’s resolution of this matter because the challenged policy does not only affect the Plaintiff, it affects any citizen who attempts to register for the first time during an electoral period, including those who fully meet every constitutional requirement to vote. The Court’s decision will determine whether citizens like my friend, and future voters in similar situations, will be permitted lawful access to the ballot.

The Government’s refusal to process initial voter registrations during an electoral period is an incorrect interpretation of the law and results in unconstitutional disenfranchisement. By interpreting an initial registration as a prohibited “change of residence,” the Government has denied eligible citizens access to the ballot.

While it was not brought up in my previous request to file an Amicus Brief the change of council for the defense is notable due to the Prime Minister interfering with a FOI request that had to do with the plaintiffs counsel. Lyon has previously called the plaintiffs counsel a "MFer" in global chat. If your honor wishes, I can provide text logs and pictures backing this claim.

I affirm that all statements in this brief are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, and I understand that any falsehoods may subject me to penalties for perjury.
 
Last edited:
Motion to Strike
I have already requested the Amicus Brief be blocked via objection, but now that it has been submitted, I wish to motion to strike the contents of the post, especially the fourth paragraph that contains out of context ad-hominem attacks against the counsel for the Defendant that do not bear relevance to the case.
 
xXLordLyonXx said:
Thank you, Your Honor.

Prior to responding to the complaint, I must unfortunately make several important motions and objections.


Motion to Strike
The Plaintiff's listed Factual Allegations 8-12 are not general facts (date, time, location) or information. They are legal claims and arguments that must be litigated in this court.


Motion for Reconsideration
Your Honor, we ask you revoke the injunction on the election. First and foremost, the defense is unclear what Act of Parliament this court is deriving authority to issue an order pausing an election. Temporary injunctions, as listed under the Court Orders, Powers, and Judgments tab on the forums, are "issued to maintain the status quo while a legal dispute is ongoing." The status quo in this case is that Aero Nox did not complete his voter registration in the proper time.

Secondly, Your Honor has issued this injunction in violation of the Court Orders Procedure Act. The Defendant was not provided an opportunity to issue a rebuttal to the (improperly-named) motion filed by the Plaintiff. As such, we must request the immediate reversal of your decision, as it was issued without giving us an opportunity to respond and is therefore in direct violation of the law.


Motion to Suppress Evidence
If the Plaintiff wishes to utilize testimony of an individual, they should call that individual as a witness. Allowing the Plaintiff to ask questions in private and post them in the court thread as evidence gives the Defendant no opportunity to conduct a proper cross-examination, inherently biasing the trial. Therefore, we request the screenshot provided be suppressed and not considered by the court. If the Plaintiff wishes to use such testimony as evidence, they should be required to call witnesses as all prior cases have had to do, so that the defense has a fair and proper opportunity to cross-examine any testimony given by individuals.


Motion for Reconsideration
Your Honor ruled against our Motion to Dismiss without providing any explanation. The Constitution clearly delegates the authority to manage and regulate Voter Registration to the Government of the Azalea Isles, which I can personally confirm as the author of the constitutional amendment establishing this power is the intended interpretation. We must respectfully ask again that this case be dismissed.


Objection to Amicus Brief
This is a trial case, Your Honor. As clearly stated in "The Judiciary" forum page, under the "Judiciary" forum folder, "Trial cases shall be between a plaintiff...; a defendant...; and various third-parties affiliated with the case in some form (...whom are named in the case for reasons designated by a plaintiff or defendant.)" (emphasis added).

The individual requesting the ability to file an Amicus Brief, which is only legally allowed in appellate cases (and this is not an appellate case, no decision is being appealed here), has not been named by either the Plaintiff or the Defendant as a party to the case. The Judiciary page explicitly states who may participate as a party to a trial case, and unaffiliated individuals with an interest in the case are only explicitly allowed under the appellate section.

As such, we must ask that you reverse your decision to allow the presentation of an amicus brief, as they are not allowed for non-appellate cases.
Click to expand...
Your honor,
I will now respond to the following motions laid out by the defense:

Motion for Reconsideration
Your Honor, he just repeated the same argument made by the defense in the initial Motion to Dismiss, this motion should be rejected as no new arguments have been made and there is nothing new to consider.

Motion to Strike
The facts laid out are essential to understand the events, or so the Plaintiff understands. If defense Council wishes to contest them, they can do so in their response.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top