Case: Pending Aero Nox v. Ministry of State (2026) CV 14

[Aero]

Aero Nox

v.

Ministry of State

---

Introduction

This is a civil action brought by the Plaintiff, Aero Nox, against the Ministry of State (MoS) for their execution of unconstitutional Parliamentary audits. Nowhere in our body of law is this responsibility defined as a mandate for the the Ministry of State. As such, their execution of these audits is unconstitutional and a waste of public funds.

---

Parties

1. Plaintiff Aero Nox - A Member of Parliament of the Azalea Isles
2. Defendant Ministry of State

---

Factual Allegations

1. On January 27, 2026, the Ministry of State reached out to Aero Nox to ask questions as part of their execution of Parliamentary audits, as seen in the attached screenshot.
2. Nowhere in the body of law for the Azalea Isles is the Ministry of State given the mandate to perform these audits.
3. The Constitution clearly states that "Portfolios may be established through law to manage the following government responsibilities: justice, health, infrastructure, social services, public safety, trade, regulation, education and anything else established through the law."
4. Section 4.b.i of the Governing Structures Act reaffirms this by stating "(i) These policies are subject to the laws and the Constitution of the Azalea Isles and cannot contravene them."
5. Section 11 of the Governing Structures Act does not charge the Ministry of State with Parliamentary oversight.
6. As such, the Ministry of State is operating outside the bounds of its Constitutional responsibilities.

---

As a direct result of the Ministry of Justice’s actions, the Plaintiff suffered:

• An improper exercise of Executive power against Parliament.

---

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant the following relief:

1. The immediate cessation of all activities by the Ministry of State which are not defined in law, including but not limited to, Parliamentary audits.
2. Any further relief the Court deems just and proper.

 

[Aero]

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court for an emergency temporary injunction prohibiting the Ministry of State from illegally performing Parliamentary audits during the duration of this case. Absent injunctive relief, Plaintiff faces government overreach with powers not defined in law.

 

[Aero]

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court for an emergency temporary injunction prohibiting the Ministry of State from illegally enforcing the "MOS AUDIT POLICY" created at 3:11pm EST and found at https://www.cityrp.org/threads/mos-audit-policy.3139/. Absent injunctive relief, Plaintiff faces government overreach with powers not defined in law.

 

[Westray]

Writ of Summons

Azalea Isles District Court, Civil Case (CV)

Case No. CV-26-14
​

Plaintiff: Aero Nox (Aeronox4)
Defendant: Ministry of State

​

The Defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of Aero Nox v. Ministry of State. Failure to respond within 48 hours may result in a default judgement. Both parties are ask to familiarize themselves with the relevant court documents, including proper formats, as well as the laws referenced in the complaint. Ensure that you comply with any court orders.

If you wish to hold this trial at the Azalea Courthouse in-person, please note that in your response. The Court will try to work with both parties to hold live hearings at convenient times.

​

Signed,
Hon. Chief Justice Raymond West

 

[Westray]

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court for an emergency temporary injunction prohibiting the Ministry of State from illegally performing Parliamentary audits during the duration of this case. Absent injunctive relief, Plaintiff faces government overreach with powers not defined in law.

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court for an emergency temporary injunction prohibiting the Ministry of State from illegally enforcing the "MOS AUDIT POLICY" created at 3:11pm EST and found at https://www.cityrp.org/threads/mos-audit-policy.3139/. Absent injunctive relief, Plaintiff faces government overreach with powers not defined in law.

The Court will rule on this matter 24 hours from now. When responding to the summons, the Defendant may also provide a response to this emergency injunction, provided they do so before the Court's ruling.

 

[xXLordLyonXx]

The Ministry of State is present before the court.


Response to Both Injunctions

Your Honor, the parliamentary audits are voluntary as part of the Ministry's efforts to aid in broader government transparency. Plaintiff is not being compelled to respond or facing consequences for not responding. Plaintiff was told answering the questions was voluntary. It is simply the Ministry asking MPs questions, which they can choose not to answer. Plaintiff's claims are excessive, and it is the Defendant's position that a voluntary Q&A with no consequences for not participating is not "government overreach with powers not defined in law."

 

[Aero]

Objection: Relevance

Counsel for the defense speaks of the Parliamentary audits being voluntary as if that gives them legitimacy. The fact remains that the Ministry of State does not have the mandate to perform these audits and should therefore not be allocating any government resources to their execution.

 

[Westray]

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court for an emergency temporary injunction prohibiting the Ministry of State from illegally performing Parliamentary audits during the duration of this case. Absent injunctive relief, Plaintiff faces government overreach with powers not defined in law.

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court for an emergency temporary injunction prohibiting the Ministry of State from illegally enforcing the "MOS AUDIT POLICY" created at 3:11pm EST and found at https://www.cityrp.org/threads/mos-audit-policy.3139/. Absent injunctive relief, Plaintiff faces government overreach with powers not defined in law.

After some consideration, the Court has decided to accept these requests for an emergency injunction with caveats. This decision is made with the understanding that unauthorized executive intrusion into the legislative sphere (like auditing MPs) could potentially constitute a separation-of-powers injury.

I also struggle to see the voluntary argument that the Defence has presented in this case. The Plaintiff's screenshot shows no indication from the Ministry of State to suggest that these audits are voluntarily. Instead, when questioned regarding the basis for the inquiry, the State Minister asserted authority by virtue of its position as an executive ministry ("The fact that I'm MoS Minister?"), rather than clarifying the voluntary nature of the request.

The Court finds that when an executive ministry initiates an inquiry under the assertion of governmental authority, such action carries an inherent coercive effect, particularly when directed at Members of Parliament. That being said, should the Ministry assert the clear voluntarily nature of this audit, it may reduce any irreparable harms absent belief. Please see the injunction I am placing below.

---

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

The Ministry of State, its officers, agents, and employees are hereby enjoined from conducting, enforcing, or implementing any Parliamentary audit or audit-like inquiry, unless the Ministry satisfies the following conditions:

• The Ministry of State must explicitly and affirmatively notify all Members of Parliament and Parliamentary Officers, in writing, that:
  • Participation in any audit or inquiry is entirely optional;
  • There is no expectation of compliance; and,
  • The Ministry does not assert any authority to compel responses.

Such notice must be clear, unambiguous, and issued prior to any further audit-related communication.

The "MOS AUDIT POLICY" can continue to be enforced, provided that it meets the above conditions in any communications with Parliament.

Note that this injunction does not authorize the Ministry of State to exercise powers not granted by law and does not resolve the ultimate question of whether parliamentary audits by the Ministry are constitutionally permissible. Failure to meet the conditions of this injunction (such as continuing to conduct parliamentary audits without meeting the listed conditions) may result in charges for not abiding by court orders.

 

[Westray]

Given that the injunction has now been responded to, the Defendant has 48 hours, from this post, to present an answer to the complaint.

 

[xXLordLyonXx]

Motion to Reconsider

I apologize for not initially attaching these, Your Honor. As Your Honor mentioned needing to believe the issue was voluntary, these are the full chats between the Plaintiff and the Minister. The Minister refers to the questions being voluntary three times throughout the conversation. Your Honor's injunction simply upholds existing MoS policy. As such, we request you withdraw the declared injunction.

 

[Aero]

Objection

Counsel for the defense is incorrectly claiming that the Minister of State has indicated that the issue was voluntary. Based on the screenshots provided, you can see that that is not at all what was said. Instead, the Minister says things like "If you don't answer that's fine with me" while continuing to assert his authority to perform the audits. The Minister even tries a final assertion that Parliament is part of the civil service. A claim which is completely ludicrous. The Minister fails to understand that Parliament is one of the co-equal branches of government. Given the context of the full conversation, you can see why Plaintiff did not believe at any point in time that the Minister meant that the audits were voluntary, or that there would be no consequences for failing to answer.

 

[xXLordLyonXx]

Objection Response

"If u don't wanna answer that's fine with me just lemme know"; "If you refuse to answer that's not a problem for me I'll go to the next MP"; "Now as specified earlier if u refuse to answer that's fine for me" are about as clear as it should need to be, Your Honor. The Minister attempted to explain where the program originated and why the Plaintiff was being asked questions, but three different times indicated the Plaintiff did not have to answer. He did not threaten consequences for not answering.

If Plaintiff did not believe he did not have to answer, after being told he did not have to answer three different times, that is up to the Plaintiff. The Defendant removed any "inherent coercive effect" Your Honor raised after telling the Plaintiff he did not have to answer the first time, let alone the additional two times. The rest of the conversation is the Minister attempting to explain to the Plaintiff that a voluntary program to ask MPs questions is not government overreach, but the relevant fact is that Plaintiff was told he did not have to answer three different times and is still attempting to assert he was unaware he did not have to answer.

 

[Aero]

Motion for Summary Judgement

Your honor, the Defense has failed to provide an answer to the complaint within the time allotted by the Court. I therefore ask for a summary judgement.

 

[Westray]

Motion to Reconsider

I apologize for not initially attaching these, Your Honor. As Your Honor mentioned needing to believe the issue was voluntary, these are the full chats between the Plaintiff and the Minister. The Minister refers to the questions being voluntary three times throughout the conversation. Your Honor's injunction simply upholds existing MoS policy. As such, we request you withdraw the declared injunction.

At this time, the motion to reconsider is hereby denied. If it is true that the Ministry of State is already having these audits as voluntary efforts, then such injunction should place no burden on them. Instead, this injunction is simply asking that the Ministry makes it abundantly clear to any member or officer of Parliament that:

• Participation in any audit or inquiry is entirely optional;
• There is no expectation of compliance; and,
• The Ministry does not assert any authority to compel responses.

Motion for Summary Judgement

Your honor, the Defense has failed to provide an answer to the complaint within the time allotted by the Court. I therefore ask for a summary judgement.

As for the motion to summary judgement, this is hereby denied. The Defendant has responded to the Court with motions to reconsider, showing their presence. I will however note that I did ask the Defendant for an answer to the complaint, which they have not yet provided.

As a result, I am setting a new deadline of 24 hours, and asking that the Defendant please provide an answer to complaint as soon as possible.

 

[Aero]

Motion to Reconsider

Your honor, the result of Defendant's motion would not have changed their answer to the complain in any way. It has also been over 78 hours since you asked Defendant to present an answer to the complaint.

I can't help but point out that the Judiciary repeatedly shows extreme leeway to the Government, while not affording that leeway to citizens.

In Robi Hawes v. Ministry of Justice, the Plaintiff's request for another extension was denied and the case dismissed.

Case: Dismissed Thread 'Appeal on the Matter of Robi Hawes v. Ministry of Justice (2025) CV 14'

Jan 9, 2026

Supreme Court of Azalea Isles - Case Appeal
District Court Link: https://www.cityrp.org/threads/robi-hawes-v-ministry-of-justice-2025-cv-14.2980/
District Court Judge: Honourable Fauz Wolfe (fauzfauzfauz)
Decision Date: December 22, 2025

On the matter of Robi Hawes v. Ministry of Justice (2025) CV 14, appellant Robi Hawes (Robidemon2) has filed an appeal based on the: Case Verdict.

“I, Robi Hawes, am requesting review of the ruling made by the District Court of Azalea on the Verdict.”

Appeals are heard by the Supreme Court of Azalea Isles based on the...

• Courts of Azalea Isles
• Replies: 11
• Forum: Supreme Court

However, in several cases, the Court not only granted motions for extension to the Government, but also gave extensions unprompted after the Government failed to meets its deadlines.

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

Anthony_org v. The Ministry of Justice COMPLAINT : This civil action arises from the unlawful arrest, detention, and incarceration of Plaintiff Anthony_org by employees of the Ministry of Justice (“MoJ”) without due process of law. Plaintiff was jailed without a hearing, without an opportunity...

cityrp.org

Case: Pending - Budgiebud v. Ministry of Justice (2026) CV 06

Budgiebud v. Ministry of Justice INTRODUCTION This civil action arises from the unlawful arrest, detention, and incarceration of Plaintiff Budgiebud by employees of the Ministry of Justice (“MoJ”) without due process of law. Plaintiff was jailed without a hearing, without an opportunity to...

cityrp.org

Case: Pending - Kimijungun Kapteijn v. Ministry of Justice (2026) CV 11

KimiJungUn v. Ministry of Justice Introduction This is a civil action brought by the Plaintiff, KimiJungUn, against the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) for an unlawful arrest and charge of Assault lacking factual and evidentiary basis. The Ministry of Justice arrested and penalized the Plaintiff...

cityrp.org

 

[xXLordLyonXx]

Response

As Your Honor knows, it is historical precedent that discussing and addressing motions delays the normal Case Structure steps. This is not abnormal (if anything, Your Honor's restricted timeline is a break from past behavior), and choosing to change this method of running the judiciary, without notice, would be inappropriate and harmful to participants in the judicial process. The Defendant is not asking for repeated extensions after filing the case - we are following precedent, and no notice has been provided that said precedent is being changed.

 

[Anthony_org]

Request to file Amicus Brief

Your honor, I would like to file an Amicus Brief on stare decisis, its meaning, and how it does not affect the courts of Azalea Isles. This briefing will bring up explicit examples of court cases in Azalea.

 

[Aero]

Response

As Your Honor knows, it is historical precedent that discussing and addressing motions delays the normal Case Structure steps. This is not abnormal (if anything, Your Honor's restricted timeline is a break from past behavior), and choosing to change this method of running the judiciary, without notice, would be inappropriate and harmful to participants in the judicial process. The Defendant is not asking for repeated extensions after filing the case - we are following precedent, and no notice has been provided that said precedent is being changed.

Objection Relevance

Your honor, the "Motions and Objections" document in the Court Library says "In the course of litigating a case, there may be minor issues that arise that need to be resolved to continue the case." The Defendant's Motion to Reconsider, is not one such motion. Regardless of your decision, the Defendant would still have been required to submit an answer to the complaint. Thus, one can only conclude that Defendant's motion was not one of those that may need to be resolved to continue the case.

If we took Defendant's claim at face value. That all motions need to be resolved for the case to proceed, then a bad actor could simply make a unending series of motions to delay the Court indefinitely. Can the Court, in good faith, really agree with this claim?

Furthermore, the Court clearly instructed the Defendant that he had 48 hours to present an answer to the complaint. And the Defendant, by his own admission, ignored the Court's instructions. An act tantamount to Contempt of Court.

 

[Westray]

The Court has reviewed the recent filings and responses in this matter and finds it necessary to address not only the pending procedural dispute, but also the manner in which the parties are litigating this case.

Motion to Reconsider

Your honor, the result of Defendant's motion would not have changed their answer to the complain in any way. It has also been over 78 hours since you asked Defendant to present an answer to the complaint.

I can't help but point out that the Judiciary repeatedly shows extreme leeway to the Government, while not affording that leeway to citizens.

In Robi Hawes v. Ministry of Justice, the Plaintiff's request for another extension was denied and the case dismissed.

Case: Dismissed Thread 'Appeal on the Matter of Robi Hawes v. Ministry of Justice (2025) CV 14'

Jan 9, 2026

Supreme Court of Azalea Isles - Case Appeal
District Court Link: https://www.cityrp.org/threads/robi-hawes-v-ministry-of-justice-2025-cv-14.2980/
District Court Judge: Honourable Fauz Wolfe (fauzfauzfauz)
Decision Date: December 22, 2025

On the matter of Robi Hawes v. Ministry of Justice (2025) CV 14, appellant Robi Hawes (Robidemon2) has filed an appeal based on the: Case Verdict.

“I, Robi Hawes, am requesting review of the ruling made by the District Court of Azalea on the Verdict.”

Appeals are heard by the Supreme Court of Azalea Isles based on the...

• Courts of Azalea Isles
• Replies: 11
• Forum: Supreme Court

However, in several cases, the Court not only granted motions for extension to the Government, but also gave extensions unprompted after the Government failed to meets its deadlines.

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

Anthony_org v. The Ministry of Justice COMPLAINT : This civil action arises from the unlawful arrest, detention, and incarceration of Plaintiff Anthony_org by employees of the Ministry of Justice (“MoJ”) without due process of law. Plaintiff was jailed without a hearing, without an opportunity...

cityrp.org

Case: Pending - Budgiebud v. Ministry of Justice (2026) CV 06

Budgiebud v. Ministry of Justice INTRODUCTION This civil action arises from the unlawful arrest, detention, and incarceration of Plaintiff Budgiebud by employees of the Ministry of Justice (“MoJ”) without due process of law. Plaintiff was jailed without a hearing, without an opportunity to...

cityrp.org

Case: Pending - Kimijungun Kapteijn v. Ministry of Justice (2026) CV 11

KimiJungUn v. Ministry of Justice Introduction This is a civil action brought by the Plaintiff, KimiJungUn, against the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) for an unlawful arrest and charge of Assault lacking factual and evidentiary basis. The Ministry of Justice arrested and penalized the Plaintiff...

cityrp.org

Regarding the motion to reconsider the motion for summary judgement, the Court does not believe that there has been sufficient argumentation provided in this case in order to offer a comprehensive ruling. In the event where relief may impose a new requirement on the government or a change in statutory law, it is generally favoured that the case is heard in full. To making a ruling after only reviewing the complaint itself would constitute a significant miscarriage of justice.

In the Appeal on the Matter of Robi Hawes v. Ministry of Justice, this was an appeal that was dismissed because the appellant (the individual who initiated the case) was missing deadlines and requesting extension after extension. The reliance on such case for comparison is gravely misplaced. There is a significant difference between the cases described in such examples. In the present case, the Defendant timely acknowledged the summons and participated in the proceedings, though a formal answer to the complaint has not yet been filed. These situations are not analogous. More comparable cases would be ones in which defendants were a variety of entities - from individuals, to businesses, to government - who have responded with motions before responding with an answer to the complaint.

The additional district court cases cited by the Plaintiff are likewise not relevant to the procedural posture of this matter. Extensions and leniency are assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account context, conduct, and the role of the party before the Court. As a general matter, I have applied greater procedural leniency to respondents (such as defendants) than to initiating parties, as the initiating party has chosen to invoke the Court's jurisdiction and set the litigation in motion.

Such latitude is not unlimited, of course, which is why I have already specified for the Defendant that a 24-hour deadline is due. At such point, if the Defendant has still not offered an answer to complaint, then the Court may reconsider its decision on the summary judgement.

Request to file Amicus Brief

Your honor, I would like to file an Amicus Brief on stare decisis, its meaning, and how it does not affect the courts of Azalea Isles. This briefing will bring up explicit examples of court cases in Azalea.

This amicus brief request will be reviewed once both parties have presented their opening statements.

---

I also want to address that this case has increasingly shifted away from structured motion practice into argumentative commentary, objections raised outside proper procedural posture, and responses filed without leave of Court. The Court reminds all parties that this is a judicial proceeding, not an open debate forum. It is the Plaintiff's every right to express concerns regarding the tardiness of government attorneys in other cases, but this is not the place to do so.

Once again, the Defendant has 24 hours @xXLordLyonXx to provide this answer to complaint so that we can all move forward. Thank you.