Case: Pending Just_Jada v. Ministry of Justice (2025) CV 16

[Anthony_org]

Just_Jada​

v.

The Ministry of Justice

---

Complaint : ​

This civil action arises from the conduct of employees of The Ministry of Justice, who publicly discouraged citizens from voting, falsely announced that “democracy is paused,” and misrepresented the scope of judicial orders. These actions violated the Constitution of Azalea Isles, specifically:

• Article 1, Section 5 – The Right to Vote
• Article 1, Section 10 – The Right Against Government Overreach

and constitute statutory violations of:

• Electoral Dissuasion (Electoral Crimes & Registration Act §2(d))
• Undermining Democracy (Electoral Crimes & Registration Act §2(e))

Plaintiff brings this action to protect constitutional rights and preserve democratic integrity.

---

Parties : ​

Plaintiff : Just_Jada
Defendant : The Ministry of Justice

---

Statement of Facts : ​

A. MoJ Employees Declared Democracy “Paused” and Voting “Not Allowed.”​

On multiple occasions, MoJ employees publicly stated:

• “Democracy was paused today.”
• “You can’t vote.”
• “Democracy is closed for today.”
• “Democracy is paused because Robi made it happen.”

Exhibit A:


Exhibit B:

Exhibit C:

Exhibit D:


These statements caused widespread confusion, leading citizens to question whether voting was permitted and whether votes would count.

---

B. MoJ Employees Misrepresented the Court’s Temporary Order​

A judicial notice temporarily paused only the results of the by-election, pending resolution of a case.

Exhibit E:



The Court did not:

• Suspend democracy;
• Halt the right to vote;
• Authorize MoJ personnel to restrict democratic participation.

Despite this, MoJ employees issued sweeping declarations incorrectly suggesting that democracy itself was paused.

---

C. MoJ Employee Conduct Dissuaded Voting​

MoJ employees’ statements discouraged Plaintiff and other citizens from voting, fulfilling the statutory definition of Electoral Dissuasion.
This gave the misinformation undue credibility.

---

Legal Claims​

Violation of Article 1, Section 5 (Right to Vote)​

MoJ employees unlawfully interfered with Plaintiff’s constitutional right to vote by asserting that democracy was paused and voting was not permitted.

---

Violation of Article 1, Section 10 (Government Overreach)​

MoJ employees exceeded their lawful authority by issuing unauthorized declarations restricting democratic rights.

---

Electoral Dissuasion (Electoral Crimes Act S2(d))​

MoJ employees caused citizens to feel unable to participate in elections by claiming democracy and elections were suspended.

---

Undermining Democracy (Electoral Crimes Act S2(e))​

MoJ employees undermined the legitimacy of elections by misrepresenting judicial authority and discouraging electoral participation.

---

Prayer for Relief​

Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:

1. Issue a judicial finding that The Ministry of Justice, through its employees, violated Article 1(5) and Article 1(10).
2. Issue a judicial finding that The Ministry of Justice, through its employees, committed Electoral Dissuasion (S2(d)) and Undermining Democracy (S2(e)).
3. Grant injunctive reliefpreventing MoJ personnel from:
   • Issuing unauthorized declarations regarding elections;
   • Misrepresenting judicial orders.
4. Award punitive damages in the amount of $10,000.
5. Award legal fees in the amount of $2,000.
6. Grant any further relief the Court deems just and proper.

---

Verification​

I, Anthony org, 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.

Proof of representation :

 

[fauzfauzfauz]

Can you provide the Court proof you represent the government? Only prosecutors are able to bring forth criminal charges.

 

[Anthony_org]

Can you provide the Court proof you represent the government? Only prosecutors are able to bring forth criminal charges.

Your Honor, I am not attempting to bring criminal charges against the Ministry of Justice or any of its employees. This is not a criminal prosecution, and I am not acting as a government representative or prosecutor.

This case is a civil complaint. Any references to statutes or legal violations are included only to support the plaintiffs civil claims and to demonstrate how the Defendant’s statements exceeded their lawful authority and harmed the plaintiffs protected rights as a citizen. I am not asking the Court to impose criminal penalties.

 

[Aero]

Your honor, may I file an amicus brief about this case?

I am the plaintiff in Aero Nox v. Azalea, a case currently before this Court that concerns limits on governmental authority, which gives me a direct interest in matters involving ministries exceeding their lawful powers.

 

[fauzfauzfauz]

Mr. Anthony, two of your legal claims (#3 and #4) are crimes under the Electoral Crimes and Registration Act, and have been added to the criminal code. More specifically, the act states under section 3, "The MOJ would be empowered to charge any individuals suspected of committing the aforementioned offences"

If you are still interested in pursuing legal action in general, you are welcome to, as long as you amend the case file to only include the first two legal claims, as you have not provided any evidence that you represent the government. Only the government can prosecute Electoral crimes.

Mr. Aero, a decision will be made about your request pending the decision of the Plaintiff.

 

[Anthony_org]

Mr. Anthony, two of your legal claims (#3 and #4) are crimes under the Electoral Crimes and Registration Act, and have been added to the criminal code. More specifically, the act states under section 3, "The MOJ would be empowered to charge any individuals suspected of committing the aforementioned offences"

If you are still interested in pursuing legal action in general, you are welcome to, as long as you amend the case file to only include the first two legal claims, as you have not provided any evidence that you represent the government. Only the government can prosecute Electoral crimes.

Mr. Aero, a decision will be made about your request pending the decision of the Plaintiff.

Your honor, I wish to pursue this case with the 2 charges amended out of the filing.

 

[RealHanuta]

Your Honour,

the Defense is present before the Court. Additionally, I would like to instate Lysander Lyon as my Co-Council.

 

[fauzfauzfauz]

I have not officially summoned you yet, but you have 48 hours to present an answer to the case file.

Mr. Aero, do you have specific interest in this case? Having experience in alleged wrongdoings in general does not necessarily mean you have interest in these specific circumstances.

 

[Anthony_org]

I have not officially summoned you yet, but you have 48 hours to present an answer to the case file.

Mr. Aero, do you have specific interest in this case? Having experience in alleged wrongdoings in general does not necessarily

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS ​

Your Honour,
The Plaintiff respectfully submits this Motion for Sanctions regarding the Defense speaking out of turn without being summoned by the Court. While I do not wish to impede the overall progress of this case, it is essential that all parties comply with proper decorum. Therefore, I request that the Court issue an appropriate sanction or reprimand reminding the Defense of their duty to speak only when called upon and to abide fully by procedural expectations established by this Court.

 

[Aero]

Your Honor,

Yes, I do have a specific interest in this case. My ongoing case, Aero Nox v. Azalea Isles, also concerns whether a government entity can claim powers that are not supported by the Constitution. The statements made by MoJ personnel in this case raise the same issue. Because both cases deal with the Government exceeding their legal powers and impacting citizens’ voting rights, the Court’s rulings here could directly affect the legal questions in my own case. For that reason, I believe my interest is specific and relevant.

 

[fauzfauzfauz]

Motion for sanctions made by the Plaintiff is accepted. While I did not personally contest the Defendant marking their presence without a summons, I will ensure court procedure is upheld by both parties and moreover enforced by me.

Mr. Brehmer, while I appreciate your timeliness, next time please await my summons. I promise I will get to issuing one as soon as I can.

Mr. Aero, after careful consideration, the Court has decided to reject the amicus brief request. Thank you for your time.

 

[xXLordLyonXx]

Answer to Civil Complaint:

There is a clear delineation between the realm of individual responsibility, and governmental responsibility. The Plaintiff declares the Ministry of Justice is responsible for the personal political beliefs and statements of its employees, and although it has amended its statements of fact, still has criminal charges labeled in the complaint, and has requested a judgement declaring criminal action as part of the requested Prayer for Relief.

But this mis-filing aside, the very first Fundamental Protection of our Constitution is the "Freedom of thought, belief, and political opinion." The Plaintiff has provided no evidence it was Ministry of Justice policy to claim this, and neither of the two employees are Deputy Minister or Minister, to speak on behalf of the entire Ministry.

Fundamentally, the two individuals were exercising their First Fundamental Protection rights, but if that caused harm to the Plaintiff, the liability belongs to the individuals, not to an entity that did not direct these comments. No evidence at all has been provided linking the official policy of the Ministry to these statements.


Parties:

Plaintiff: Just_Jada
Defendant: The Ministry of Justice


Factual Defenses or Challenges:

(1) Neither Powder nor Biscuit are Ministry leadership.
(2) The statements made by these individuals were their own political beliefs, not Ministry of Justice policy.
(3) These statements were never formally made by the officials of the Ministry of Justice who have the authority to represent the Ministry on policy.
(4) No evidence has been provided by the Plaintiff linking the Ministry of Justice to these individuals' statements, aside from the fact they were employed by the Ministry, to clarify this was Ministry of Justice policy.


Legal Defenses or Challenges:

Specify the legal claims or causes of action being asserted by the plaintiff, such as breach of contract, negligence, or fraud.

(1) Both Ministry of Justice employees referenced here have a First Fundamental Protection right to their political opinion, which was espoused in the screenshots.
(2) Neither Ministry of Justice employee was iterating Ministry of Justice policy, nor were any "official" Ministry declarations made, as the Plaintiff alleges in arguing over the Tenth Fundamental Protection under their legal claims. Ministry announcements are largely made either in-server or in the gov-announcements channel of the Discord, neither of which saw a Ministry of Justice post saying anything similar.
(3) If the Plaintiff believes they have incurred damages as a result of these individuals espousing their political beliefs, that liability is on the individuals, not on the Ministry of Justice, whose official representatives (its leadership) in no way made any official declaration or policy supporting these comments.


Verification:

I, Lysander Lyon, 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.


--------------------------------

Motion to Dismiss

Point #1 - Your Honor, the Plaintiff was given ample opportunity to properly amend the filing to remove all criminal allegations. The Plaintiff has left these allegations in both the actual complaint itself, and in the requested Prayer for Relief. If the Defendant is to be sanctioned for notifying the court in advance of its presence and intention to have additional counsel present, with the goal of judicial efficiency, then the Plaintiff failing to properly amend their filing after Your Honor explicitly pointed out the issue is clearly worthy of dismissal.

Point #2 - Your Honor, there remains no evidence that actually involves the Ministry of Justice in this matter. The Plaintiff has alleged wrongdoing by two individuals, and claims it was an abuse of their titles. Ministry of Justice employees do not have special Discord or in-game chatting permissions. These individuals spoke their own beliefs, not Ministry of Justice policy; they have no claim to represent the Ministry; and if there is any foundation at all for any liability, the Plaintiff has failed to provide any reason why the Ministry of Justice specifically is liable, rather than the individuals who made the statements.

As such, we must motion for dismissal of the case.

 

[Anthony_org]

Your Honor,

The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff failed to amend the complaint because references to the two statutory claims were not removed from the Prayer for Relief.

The Plaintiff already dropped the statutory claims:

• Electoral Dissuasion (ECRA S2(d))
• Undermining Democracy (ECRA S2(e))

The only issue is that one line referencing those claims remained in the Prayer for Relief by mistake. It was a simple formatting oversight and not an attempt to keep withdrawn claims active. The body of the Complaint clearly reflects that the statutory claims were withdrawn.

The Plaintiff is prepared to submit a corrected Prayer for Relief upon the Court’s request.

---

Motion to Amend​

Because the reference to the withdrawn claims was accidental, the Plaintiff respectfully moves to amend the Prayer for Relief that pertains to the two removed statutory violations, so the record cleanly reflects the constitutional claims properly before the Court.

---

The Defendant’s Argument About Employee Responsibility Is a Legal Dispute, Not a Basis for Dismissal​

The Defendant argues it cannot be held liable because its employees were “expressing personal political beliefs.”
The Complaint alleges and the exhibits show that MoJ employees, while visibly identified as MoJ personnel, made authoritative statements. These statements caused confusion regarding the Plaintiff’s right to vote and misrepresented the Court’s temporary order. Whether these employees were acting within the scope of their authority is a legal question, not something that can be decided on a Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiff’s evidence shows that the misinformation was coming from individuals wearing MoJ titles, and citizens reasonably rely on MoJ officials for accurate information about the law.

---

Objection to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss​

For these reasons, the Plaintiff respectfully moves to deny the Ministry of Justice’s Motion to Dismiss. The Motion is based on:

• a clerical error already explained, and
• a legal argument improper for resolution at the dismissal stage.

The Complaint clearly states actionable claims and provides evidence to support them.

---

The Plaintiff respectfully asks the Court to:

1. Grant the Motion to Amend the leftover Prayer for Relief line referencing withdrawn claims;
2. Deny the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

 

[fauzfauzfauz]

The Court is prepared to accept the motion for dismissal on the basis of the Defendant’s second point. There has not been substantial proof that the Ministry is responsible for the claims that the Plaintiff is alleging, or that sections of Ministry of policy have not been upheld. I would advise the Plaintiff to look at the procedures surrounding class action lawsuits.

The Court thanks both parties for their time.