Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of CityRP.

SignUp Now!

Latest posts

Case: Pending Anthony Org v. Ministry of Justice (2026) CV 02

Your honor, I believe that we are still at the response to the complaint stage of the process as, despite the multitude of motions and missed deadlines, neither our complaint nor the opening statement of the Plaintiff has been sent. Therefore, I present to you the Answer to the Complaint on behalf of the Ministry of Justice

Answer to Civil Complaint

STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Defence AFFIRMS statements A1 and A2.
On A3, the Defence DISAGREES with the statement of fact as the Ministry had an active Arrest Warrant for the Plaintiff, which we will later argue is a valid authorization.
The Defence AFFIRMS all statements in B.

LEGAL CLAIMS
The Constitutional right allegedly being violated was “The right to self-representation or counsel in a court of law.” This means that once someone is brought into court, they are allowed to defend themselves. This does not mean that even after an arrest warrant is out, one can still appeal the decision to court first before arrest.

The policing technology issued an active Arrest Warrant for the Plaintiff. This technology was issued by the Crown and is to be treated as accurate in declaring guilt for murders and robberies. Therefore, the Arrest Warrants created by it carry the same power as an Arrest Warrant issued by a court order within the Isles by way of the Sovereignty of Her Majesty.

The technology offered by the Crown did not allow police to manually adjust the duration of arrest, violating the Criminal Code Foundation Act. This technology was later declared by the Crown through Crown Representative as not adherent to this act and has since been amended. Additionally, nothing was taken or searched from the Plaintiff so there could not have been a violation of Article 1 Section 7 as alleged.

I, Random Intruder, 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.
 
RandomIntruder said:
Your honor, I believe that we are still at the response to the complaint stage of the process as, despite the multitude of motions and missed deadlines, neither our complaint nor the opening statement of the Plaintiff has been sent. Therefore, I present to you the Answer to the Complaint on behalf of the Ministry of Justice

Answer to Civil Complaint

STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Defence AFFIRMS statements A1 and A2.
On A3, the Defence DISAGREES with the statement of fact as the Ministry had an active Arrest Warrant for the Plaintiff, which we will later argue is a valid authorization.
The Defence AFFIRMS all statements in B.

LEGAL CLAIMS
The Constitutional right allegedly being violated was “The right to self-representation or counsel in a court of law.” This means that once someone is brought into court, they are allowed to defend themselves. This does not mean that even after an arrest warrant is out, one can still appeal the decision to court first before arrest.

The policing technology issued an active Arrest Warrant for the Plaintiff. This technology was issued by the Crown and is to be treated as accurate in declaring guilt for murders and robberies. Therefore, the Arrest Warrants created by it carry the same power as an Arrest Warrant issued by a court order within the Isles by way of the Sovereignty of Her Majesty.

The technology offered by the Crown did not allow police to manually adjust the duration of arrest, violating the Criminal Code Foundation Act. This technology was later declared by the Crown through Crown Representative as not adherent to this act and has since been amended. Additionally, nothing was taken or searched from the Plaintiff so there could not have been a violation of Article 1 Section 7 as alleged.

I, Random Intruder, 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.
Click to expand...

Objection​

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff objects to the appearance and participation of RandomIntruder, who has submitted filings acting on behalf of the Ministry of Justice, on the grounds that such appearance is procedurally improper and unsupported by legal precedent.

No Designation of Counsel or Co-Counsel on the Record​

At no point in this proceeding has RandomIntruder been identified as Counsel or Co-Counsel for the Ministry of Justice. The case caption, parties section, and subsequent filings contain no designation whatsoever indicating that RandomIntruder is authorized to appear or bind the Ministry in this matter.

CR-05 Demonstrates That When MoJ Uses Additional Attorneys, It Lists Co-Counsel​

In Azalea Isles v. Dayvon Bennett (2025) CR-05, the Ministry of Justice explicitly listed Co-Counsel in the initial criminal complaint:
  • Prosecution: Fauz Wolfe
  • Co-Counsel: Lysander Lyon
This designation appeared directly in the pleading itself, without ambiguity and without requiring inference by the Court or opposing parties.

CR-05 demonstrates that when the Ministry intends for an additional attorney to participate, it affirmatively places that designation on the record.

CV-15 Demonstrates That When MoJ Changes Counsel, It Files a Motion​

In Aero Nox v. Azalea Isles (2025) CV-15, where the Government of Azalea (and thus the Ministry of Justice) was the Defendant, then-counsel and current MoJ Minister RealHanuta filed a formal Motion to Substitute Counsel, stating:

“I will give up council to Lysander Lyon.”
Click to expand...

Critically, Mr. Lyon did not proceed as counsel immediately upon declaration. Instead, the substitution occurred only after the motion was placed before the Court, acknowledged by the presiding judge, and expressly accepted on the record. The Court then offered to adjust procedural timelines to account for the substitution and invited the new counsel to proceed.

This sequence establishes more than mere formality. It demonstrates that changes in Ministry representation are matters requiring judicial notice and approval, not unilateral action. The authority of new counsel flowed from the Court’s recognition of the motion, not from internal Ministry preference alone.

Accordingly, CV-15 stands for the principle that Ministry counsel does not become counsel of record until the Court has acknowledged and approved the substitution, confirming that representation changes are subject to judicial control and oversight.

The Present Case Conflicts With Both Established Practices​

Unlike CR-05:
  • No Co-Counsel designation was listed.
Unlike CV-15:
  • No motion to substitute or add counsel was filed.

Relief Requested​

Accordingly, the Objecting Party respectfully requests that the Court:
  1. Strike the unauthorized filing
  2. Award Default Judgement due to the defendant failing to respond prior to the mandated deadline
  3. Sanction the Ministry of Justice for failing to substitute counsel and missing another deadline
 
Response to Objection
Your honor, the deputy minister already replied as well, a change from the Minister who first was reported present. This change was already accepted by the court. As this is simply the answer to the complaint, a change to a lawyer hired by the Ministry of Justice should be allowed.
 
RandomIntruder said:
Response to Objection
Your honor, the deputy minister already replied as well, a change from the Minister who first was reported present. This change was already accepted by the court. As this is simply the answer to the complaint, a change to a lawyer hired by the Ministry of Justice should be allowed.
Click to expand...
Response to Response to Objection

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff notes that the Deputy Minister replied after the Minister was initially present and asserts this constitutes a “change” in representation. That characterization is incorrect.

The Minister and Deputy Minister are both leadership officials and authorized representatives of the Ministry of Justice. A response from the Deputy Minister is not a substitution of counsel, but a continuation of representation by the same governmental party through its recognized executive leadership.

The objection currently before the Court does not concern the Deputy Minister. It concerns RandomIntruder, who is:
  • Not listed as Counsel or Co-Counsel
  • Not identified as Ministry leadership
  • Not added by motion
  • Not designated on the record in any capacity
This distinction is critical.

A Deputy Minister acts as the institutional face and authority of the Ministry of Justice. By contrast, a hired attorney who is not leadership must be properly placed on the record through designation or judicially approved substitution, as shown in prior precedent.
 
@RandomIntruder Please provide evidence to the Court that a signing authority (such as the Deputy Minister of Justice) has provided you with permission to represent the Ministry of Justice in this case. I kindly ask that you provide this within 48 hours so we can move forward.
 
RandomIntruder said:
View attachment 490
Click to expand...
Thank you for providing evidence to substantiate that you have been permitted by a signing authority to represent the Ministry of Justice in this case.

Any and all objections related to the question of whether Random Intruder is authorized to represent the Ministry are hereby overruled. The answer to complaint provided by Random Intruder, counsel for the Defendant, the Ministry of Justice, shall remain extant.

The Plaintiff has 48 hours to provide an opening statement. @Anthony_org
 
Westray said:
Thank you for providing evidence to substantiate that you have been permitted by a signing authority to represent the Ministry of Justice in this case.

Any and all objections related to the question of whether Random Intruder is authorized to represent the Ministry are hereby overruled. The answer to complaint provided by Random Intruder, counsel for the Defendant, the Ministry of Justice, shall remain extant.

The Plaintiff has 48 hours to provide an opening statement. @Anthony_org
Click to expand...

Opening Statement​

When analyzing the question before the Court, it is important to understand two fundamental issues:
  1. Whether an automated policing plugin can determine guilt or legal justification, and
  2. Whether such a plugin can lawfully substitute for the Judiciary under the Constitution of Azalea Isles.

Can the plugin determine guilt or legal context?​

To answer the first question, we must examine what the policing technology actually does.

The plugin relied upon by the Ministry of Justice operates on mechanical triggers, not legal reasoning. It does not evaluate:
  • self-defense,
  • justification,
  • intent,
  • mitigating circumstances, or
  • credibility of evidence.
Plaintiff will be presenting video evidence demonstrating that this same system fails to account for lawful self-defense in assault cases (defined as "the infliction of bodily harm or the threat of imminent harm upon another person"), automatically flagging conduct as criminal regardless of context. This shows that the plugin does not determine lawfulness, only whether certain predefined conditions are met.

A system that cannot distinguish between lawful and unlawful conduct cannot be treated as a finder of guilt.

Is the plugin the Judiciary?​

The Defendant argues that because this technology was issued by the Crown, arrest warrants generated by it “carry the same power as a court-issued arrest warrant.”

This position has no constitutional basis.

Under the Constitution of Azalea Isles, the Judiciary alone is vested with the authority to:
  • adjudicate guilt,
  • interpret the law, and
  • authorize punishment following due process.
Technology does not hold hearings, does not allow for defense, does not weigh evidence, and does not issue reasoned judgments. Regardless of its origin, software is not a court.

Such technology may assist law enforcement in investigation or enforcement. It cannot replace judicial adjudication, nor can it authorize incarceration absent court involvement.
Exhibits

Exhibit B:

Conclusion​

Your Honor, this case is about whether constitutional rights may be bypassed by delegating judicial authority to an automated system.

A plugin cannot determine guilt.
A plugin cannot evaluate legal defenses.
And a plugin is not the Judiciary.

For these reasons, Plaintiff contends that the arrest and incarceration at issue were unconstitutional, and this matter should proceed to adjudication on the merits.
 
MOTION TO AMEND

Your honor, I just received screenshots from a Freedom of Information request and would like to amend my opening statements to include screenshots from this FOI that testifies to the lack of reliability from the murder plugin.

Exhibit C:
1769281961765.png

The Deputy Minister of Justice is complaining about the lack of reliability from the same system the Ministry of Justice is treating as Judge, Jury, and Executioner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top