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

Thank you Your Honor. I will alert future filers of this information as well to ensure the contents of their statements align with the definition of the amicus.

The Defense has 24 hours to provide a response to the injunction, and it shall be reconsidered.
 
Motion for Default Judgment:
Your Honor, the defendant is yet to answer to answer to the original case filing and more than 48 hours have passed I move for a default judgement specially considering the expedited nature of the trial.
 
Injunction Response

Your Honor, I reiterate my previously voiced concerns. Assuming the power to pause elections as a District Court Judge, with no basis in statutory law or in the Constitution, is a significant expansion of power for the judicial branch, especially given this is a District Court case.

Additionally, the Plaintiff ignores the wording of 5th Fundamental Protection. "The right to vote and participate in elections as specified by law." The right to vote, and to participate in elections, is governed by the law. With the passage of the Electoral Reform Amendment, which grants the authority to manage Voter Registration to the government, this clearly gives the Azalea Isles Government the power to regulate voter registration through law.

This suit was brought after voting for the election opened, and Your Honor must also consider harm issued to the rest of the Azalea Isles. Even with 24 hour response times (which are not guaranteed due to real-world circumstances), there will be opening statements, likely witnesses, closing statements, and certainly motions in between. It is extremely likely that this case could go on for another week, perhaps two, and while that would be fast by legal standards, it unjustly harms the rest of the Azalea Isles who fairly voted during the election, and the candidates, who will now have their time in office diminished every day the court case goes on.

With the concern of the precedent this could set; the fact that the claim of a violation of the Plaintiff's rights is questionable at best due to the clear wording of the Constitution; and the fact that this is a by-election for one seat; we ask that the injunction be reversed, so that the election results may be finalized while the case moves forward. This will also provide the proper time for thorough, clear legal arguments to be made in advance of the next parliamentary election, rather than attempting to rush a case over one seat (11% of Parliament).



Default Judgement Response

The Defendant has responded to this case, and is waiting to file the formal answer to the complaint until all necessary motions and discussions, including what has been initiated by the Plaintiff, are resolved, as precedent allows, most recently evidenced by Vontobel v Ministry of Urban Development, tried in the Supreme Court.
 
The injunction will stay in place for now. Because you do bring up notable points, I will be happy to reevaluate at a later time, especially if there is a significant disturbance to our citizens. I would not have paused the election if it were a general one, as I do not believe the pros of protecting against alleged damages as the matter is litigated could outweigh the cons of a total legislative/governmental halt.

The motion for a default judgement is denied. The Defendant had a 24 hour period to provide an argument against the injunction, hence the wait. A response was filed within the time frame, so the trial is to continue.
 
Motion for Default Judgment:
Your Honor, the defendant is yet to answer to answer to the original case filing and more than the 24 allotted hours ,under the expedited notice, have passed I move for a default judgement specially considering the time sensitive nature of the case.
 
Response

Your Honor has not indicated the Defendant should provide an answer to the case complaint, and Your Honor just sanctioned the counsel for the Defendant in another case for responding prior to being asked to do so.


Motion For Sanctions

The Defendant has been clearly and actively engaged with the court on this case. This is the second Motion for Default Judgement the Plaintiff has filed, accusing the Defendant of not responding, when we have followed prior precedent and the law in addressing motions, court order requests, and appeals first, and have not been assigned a new request / timeline after these items have been addressed. This being the second time this has happened is cause for concern.
 
Your Honour
Defendant does not seem to be familiar with basic case structure, he has failed to provide an answer and has wasted your time and mine, not only that he has delayed justice past whats acceptable (and past your earlier judgement). A default judgement must be provided if we are to maintain the decorum and structure of the court, otherwise we are setting a dangerous precedent.
 
Both motions are denied. As stated before in my Court, both parties are welcome to submit a motion at any time, regardless of what stage the case is in. Mr. Robi, the Defense counsel is very familiar with court structure, but since a reminder is needed after every ruling I give, I will be sure to provide that. The counsel in a different case was reminded to await my summons into the Court, not to await my permission to talk after the case has begun. Given that both parties tend to send a few messages before I can even respond to one, and without my indication, as both did here, that fact should be evident.

The Defendant has 24 hours to present an answer to the case file.
 
Motion to reconsider
Your Honour,
Plaintiff has respected the deadline given by the court, nowhere in "Court Orders Procedure Act" or in the Case Structure document is there a requirement for the judge to issue a reminder to respond after the Writ of Summons or any other event. I respectfully request for this decision to be reconsidered as it sets the wrong precedent, and not only that it gives an unfair advantage to defendant by allowing him 72 additional hours to respond while Plaintiff has respected the expedited trial notice and the courts instructions.
 
Response

As previously outlined by the Defendant:

(1) Court precedent is to address motions first, and the Court Procedure Act specifically requires court orders (injunctions) be addressed in full prior to moving forward with any other item. Any need for a recent example of the court explicitly reiterating the timeline can be found in the Supreme Court’s actions doing so in Vontobel v Ministry of Urban Development.

(2) Default judgement is used for inactivity by a party. The Defendant is not inactive, and the Defendant would like to call attention to Your Honor that frivolous motions like this detract from our ability to properly and thoroughly prepare an answer to the complaint under a court-imposed tight timeline.
 
The Defendant is right, while it does not explicitly say so in the court procedures, it is the precedent set in previous courts. Mr. Lyon, you have a bit over 12 hours left now on your timer to present an answer.
 
Answer to Civil Complaint:

The constitutional requirements to run, or to vote, include voter registration. That is why the Fifth Fundamental Protection says "The right to vote... as specified by law." In combination with the Voter Registration clause of the Constitution, the Azalea Isles Government has clear authority to oversee the voter registration process, including setting in place the reasonable protective boundaries that currently exist.

Moreover, the Plaintiff's argument that a change and creating a registration are separate things is fundamentally untrue. Creating a registration is still a change in status.

Legislative intent is clear. Overturning legislation on the basis of a semantic challenge to the specific wording chosen, when prior elections have run in proper accordance with the intent of the law, is unreasonable at best. Beyond this, it is clear what the intent of the Voter Registration clause included in the Electoral Reform Amendment was, because the Voter Registration Act (VRA) had the same author as the Electoral Reform Amendment, and the VRA was introduced less than 10 minutes after the Electoral Reform Amendment, as companion legislation. Any attempt to separate the VRA ignores it was introduced and paired with the constitutional amendment from which it draws its power.


Parties:

Plaintiff: Aero Nox
Defendant: Azalea Isles


Factual Defenses or Challenges:

(1) The Azalea Isles Constitution permits Voter Registration requirements.
(2) The right to vote is specifically governed by the law of the Isles.
(3) Any change to a citizen's registration status, including its creation, counts as a change, as going from unregistered -> registered is still a change in status.
(4) The Electoral Reform Amendment and the Voter Registration Act were companion bills in Parliament, written by the same author, and legislative intent in both the power granted to the Voter Registration Act and in the Voter Registration Act's application is clear.


Legal Defenses or Challenges:

(1) The right to vote is governed by law, in accordance with both the Fifth Fundamental Protection and the Voter Registration clause of the Constitution. In the case of this specific challenge, the Voter Registration Act has a clear interpretation that has been correctly applied for elections since August. If this application was not the legislative intent, a challenge or change would have been made by the Azalea Isles Government / Parliament since then. "Change" means to make something different; going from no registration to a registration, from empty to existing, is very much a change.
(2) The Voter Registration Act is clearly constitutional, as it draws its power from the Voter Registration clause of the Constitution, and was introduced directly alongside the legislation that created the Voter Registration clause. Legislative intent was once again clear. In order to properly interpret the law, the judiciary must take into account Parliament's intent while making the law, as context has clear relevance to lawmaking.
(3) The wording challenge is semantic, as it disputes the clear parliamentary intent, while the constitutional challenges ignores that the bills were introduced together, with the Voter Registration Act clearly linked to the passage of the Electoral Reform Amendment, as stated in the Voter Registration Act's enactment clause.


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.
 
Thank you. The Plaintiff has 24 hours to present an opening statement.
 
Opening Statement
When analyzing the question at hand it is important to understand two things:

1. What is the effective delegatory power of the constitutional amendment
2. What is a reasonable limitation?

To answer the first question we need to look at the amendment, it says "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." Registration is defined per the oxford dictionary as the "the act of making an official record of something, such as a person, a birth, or a vehicle", so when you register something you are simply letting the government know about things that already exist.

Is this a reasonable limitation? absolutely this is a reasonable boundary that does not obstruct too much with fundamental right to vote.

Voter Registration Act​

This is where we start we have problems . The act says that " Citizens completing this registration must detail their legal name, their plot of primary residence, and need to show proof that they have registered their documents. Voter registration can be updated at any time, but primary residences cannot be changed once the electoral period begins". The amendment only imposes the limitation that registration may be required in order to vote, it does not however give government the authority to create new criteria, in the second part of 2(b) we see this new criteria be created. Citizens must have a pre-registered primary residence at the start of the electoral period, Plaintiff was unable to exercise this fundamental constitutional right because he attempted to register within the electoral period and the act of "registering" his primary residence was considered a "change'.


The constitutional amendment never gave government the power to create new criteria, for example if suddenly a new registration requirement such as "you must have earned $10,000 within the last week " was created this would be unconstitutional as the amendment only gives government the ability to impose a need to "register" this being "the act of making an official record of something, such as a person, a birth, or a vehicle".

However must importantly of all, is this new criteria a reasonable limitation to Plaintiff's ability to exercise his constitutional rights? It is very clearly not. Government should try to safeguard the constitutional rights of citizens and it should perform its role of "registering" up to the last possible day and to the best of his capabilities. Registering can be a reasonable limitation but it certainly is not in the current way.

Now we also contend that registering your address for the first time constitutes a "change" as defined by the voter registration act, you cant change something that does not exist and if no address exists on record you are simply filling in a box. A change would need you to erase something in the box and replace it with something else.


Your Honour, we believe that because of the aforementioned reasons the requirements inside the voter registration act, not only pose an unreasonable limitation on the constitutional rights of plaintiff but also overstep the limitations of the amendment.
 
Thank you for your opening statement. The Defendant has 24 hours to present theirs.
 
Opening Statement

There is a simple saying this court may be familiar with: “Context is king”.

The court’s job is to interpret whether the law is being properly applied and upheld. Your Honor, interpretation is meaningless and impossible without context, which is why the Plaintiff has attempted to divorce this case from the actual legislative intent and context that led to the passage of the law. This obfuscation is why so much of the Plaintiff’s argument rests on semantics - because if words are written without context, they lose their meaning, and they can be made to “say” just about anything.

So, let’s establish the context. The Voter Registration Act (VRA) and the Electoral Reform Amendment (ERA) were passed under the 6th Parliament, which had just seen the formation of a native-backed Grand Coalition sweep all 9 seats to prevent a perceived foreign-backed party from winning any seats in Parliament.

The VRA, ERA, and Election Map Requirements Act were all introduced into Parliament on the same night, one after the other, and were all called into debate within 24 hours of each other. They were introduced as a comprehensive electoral reform package which changed the winner-take-all election system, set up voter registration practices, and clarified electoral districts.

The VRA serves two key contextual purposes. It allows electoral districts to function, so that individuals vote in the district they’re registered in, and it prevents a practice commonly referred to as “importing” voters, which was believed to have occurred during the 6th Parliament elections, by locking primary residences and ensuring candidates can not flood the zone with external supporters at the last minute.

The Voter Registration process is turned over to the Azalea Isles Government. It is not an excessive or undue burden to require citizens to fill out forms and live in the country for an amount of time prior to participating. In fact, there is significant precedent for this, with the playtime requirements to run for office (and vote), and the Supreme Court of the Isles refusing to allow testimony from DonTrillions as he did not have “clear and verifiable activity within [the Azalea Isles].”

The primary residence clause is not an undue or unreasonable requirement, and the Plaintiff’s attempt to draw a false equivalency to requiring individuals to collect $10,000 in a week’s time fails to even come close to being similar. And the Plaintiff even supports our argument in their opening statement when they say government “should perform its role of ‘registering’ up to the last possible day.” The registration period does not change! The law allows voter registration right up until declarations open, to allow maximum time for registration to be submitted and updated, while forcing candidates to lock in their homes in advance of the election rather than playing musical chairs during it. If the Plaintiff disagrees with that policy, that is a matter to take up with Parliament.

Fundamentally, Your Honor, the law and its context is actually quite clear. These laws were passed to ensure the security of the Isles’ elections. They were proposed all together, not separately, with the Voter Registration Act drawing its authority from the Electoral Reform Amendment. This is not an undue burden, and in fact the government allows voter registration right up to a reasonable last moment before the electoral period begins - it does not only allow registration one week out of the month. The government is given the power to set these regulations by the Electoral Reform Amendment.

These reasons are why the defense believes the Plaintiff's complaint is insufficient and divorced from proper legal contexts.
 
Thank you. Both parties have 24 hours to indicate if they wish to call any witnesses.
 
You’re right, Mr. Robi. The Court has been extra busy lately and apologizes for the lapse. A verdict will be posted either tomorrow or the next day pending IRL responsibilities.
 
Your Honor, the Defense objects to this decision. We have been provided no opportunity to gain testimony from the elections manner, nor cross-examine the testimony the Plaintiff screenshotted for usage in this case. Never before in the history of the Isles has either party to a case been allowed to solicit testimony from an individual outside of a trial and present it as evidence without cross-examination being allowed. This completely circumvents the judicial process. If an individual's testimony is to be treated as fact or evidence by the court, both parties must be allowed fair chance to ask questions in the court. Your Honor has stated "It’s quite common to submit evidence that contains someone else's statement" but this is only true in the context of it being other people's conversations. Your Honor is welcome to review the past lawsuits that govern precedent, but nowhere is legal counsel for one side allowed to ask critical questions of a witness and present them as fact without the other side being granted fair chance to cross-examine.

Again, this completely circumvents the proper judicial process, and we must motion to reconsider the suppression of the screenshot, or request witnesses be allowed, so that we are allotted our fair chance to cross examine the testimony that the Plaintiff's legal counsel went and gathered extra-judicially.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top