Aero Nox, Plaintiff
v.
Azalea Isles, Defendant
Complaint
Sections 12(a)(iii) and 12(a)(iv) of the New Criminal Code Act as amended by The Criminal Contests Act strip a defendant of their Constitutional rights to due process.
Parties:
- Plaintiff: Aero Nox
- Defendant: Azalea Isles
Factual Allegations:
(All dates and time are in Eastern Daylight Time, which is UTC-4.)
1. On May 18, 2026, The Criminal Contests Act was ratified. (Exhibit P-001)
2. The Criminal Contests Act amends the New Criminal Code and adds the following two sections.
Section 12(a)(iii): If a suspect has a resisting arrest charge, they are deemed a flight risk and wave their right to contest.
Section 12(a)(iv): If a suspect is found to be guilty of a crime, while still having a ticket open to contest another crime, the contest shall be invalidated and the suspect will be guilty of the crime they were seeking to contest.
3. Section 12(a)(iii) strips a defendant's right to due process by removing their ability to contest a charge, thereby resulting in an automatic finding of guilt by the Ministry of Justice.
4. Section 12(a)(iv) links a defendant's guilt in one charge to a conviction in an unrelated charge.
5. On April 22, 2026, Plaintiff received a resisting arrest charge. (Exhibit P-002)
6. Plaintiff currently possesses 6 active warrants for charges that Plaintiff wishes to contest. (Exhibit P-003)
7. Under the terms of The Criminal Contests Act, the existence of Plaintiff’s resisting arrest charge (Exhibit P-002) would, by operation of Section 12(a)(iii), automatically deem Plaintiff a flight risk and result in waiver of Plaintiff’s right to contest any of the active warrants or charges Plaintiff currently seeks to contest.
8. Under the terms of Section 12(a)(iv), if Plaintiff is found guilty on any one of the charged matters, any pending contests relating to Plaintiff’s other active charges would be invalidated and those contested matters would be treated as convictions without further adjudication.
9. The Constitution of Azalea Isles guarantees fundamental procedural protections for persons accused of crimes, including the right to due process, the right to be heard, and the presumption of innocence. The challenged statutory provisions conflict with those constitutional guarantees by eliminating meaningful adjudicative procedures and by presuming guilt in contravention of constitutional text and principles.
10. The loss of the ability to contest charges under Section 12(a)(iii) and the automatic invalidation of pending contests under Section 12(a)(iv) create imminent and concrete harms to Plaintiff: (a) immediate loss of liberty interests when adjudicative procedures are foreclosed and Plaintiff’s ability to challenge charges is nullified; (b) imminent risk of criminal conviction and collateral consequences - such as incarceration, fines, and stigma - without the required individualized adjudication; and (c) foreseeable chilling of Plaintiff’s ability to vindicate legal rights and to participate in adjudicative processes.
Legal Claims:
I. Due Process
Section 12(a)(iii) automatically strips a defendant of the ability to contest a charge. That deprivation of a procedural right denies the defendant’s right to meaningful access to adjudicative proceedings.
II. Presumption of Innocence
Section 12(a)(iv) nullifies a pending contest by presuming guilt for the contested charge based on the determination of guilt for some other crime. This violates the presumption of innocence and the accused's right to be convicted only after proof beyond a reasonable doubt on each charge.
Prayer for Relief:
1. A declaratory judgment that Sections 12(a)(iii) and 12(a)(iv) are unconstitutional;
2. Award costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Verification:
I, Aero Nox, 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.
Evidence
