Case: Dismissed Anthony Org v. Azalea Isles (2026) CV 15

[Anthony_org]

Anthony_org

v.

Azalea Isles

---

INTRODUCTION​

This civil action arises from the introduction and ongoing parliamentary debate of the Criminal Classifications Act 2.0 (“the Act”), a proposed Act of Parliament which, if enacted, would authorize arrest, punishment, and criminal liability without judicial adjudication and would unlawfully insulate executive action from judicial review.

As written, the Act expressly authorizes punishment without trial under Section 3(a), mandates presumptions of guilt under Section 7(a)–(b), and bars access to the courts under Section 5(g) and Section 5(d). These provisions are facially unconstitutional under the Constitution of Azalea Isles.

Plaintiff brings this action to seek a declaratory ruling prior to enactment, to prevent the passage and enforcement of legislation that would violate fundamental constitutional protections and collapse the separation of powers.

---

PARTIES​

Plaintiff:
Anthony_org

Defendant:
Parliament of Azalea Isles

---

STATEMENT OF FACTS​

1. The Criminal Classifications Act 2.0 has been introduced in Parliament and is currently under debate.
2. Section 3(a) of the Act provides that individuals accused of a Class 1 misdemeanor “may be arrested and punished without a trial.”
3. Section 7(a) of the Act states that warrants automatically issued by the police plugin “shall be treated as evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
4. Section 7(b) of the Act further mandates that certain plugin reports “shall be treated as evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,” without judicial evaluation.
5. Section 5(g) of the Act expressly provides that “there may not be any legal challenge to the determination made by the Ministry of Justice for a citation.”
6. Taken together, these provisions vest the Ministry of Justice with authority to determine guilt, issue warrants, and enforce punishment without adjudication by a court of law.
7. If enacted, the Act would permit citizens to be punished without a judicial hearing, without the opportunity to present evidence, and without access to judicial or constitutional review.

---

LEGAL CLAIMS​

1. Section 3(a) of the Act authorizes punishment without trial, violating Article 5 of the Constitution of Azalea Isles, which vests criminal adjudication exclusively in the Judiciary.
2. By allowing punishment without any court proceeding, Section 3(a) and Section 5(d) also violate Article 1, Section 9, which guarantees the right to self-representation or counsel in a court of law.
3. Section 7(a) and Section 7(b) mandate that specified evidence be treated as guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, unlawfully usurping the Judiciary’s role as fact-finder in violation of Article 5.
4. The irrebuttable presumptions imposed by Section 7(a) and Section 7(b) constitute government overreach prohibited by Article 1, Section 10.
5. Section 5(g) explicitly bars judicial review of Ministry of Justice determinations, directly contravening Article 5, which grants the courts authority to interpret the law and review the constitutionality of legislative and executive action.
6. By consolidating investigative, prosecutorial, adjudicative, and punitive powers within the Ministry of Justice through Sections 3, 5, and 7, the Act violates the separation of powers mandated by Article 2 of the Constitution.
7. Parliament lacks constitutional authority to enact legislation that delegates judicial power to the Executive or bars access to the courts by statute.
8. The Criminal Classifications Act 2.0, is unconstitutional on its face and cannot be lawfully enacted.

---

DAMAGES​

Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the enactment of unconstitutional legislation.

---

PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:

1. Declare that the Criminal Classifications Act 2.0, as currently drafted, is unconstitutional;
2. Enjoin Parliament from enacting the Act in its current form;
3. Grant such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

---

I, Anthony_org, hereby affirm that the allegations in this complaint AND all subsequent statements made in court are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, and that any falsehoods may bring the penalty of perjury.

 

[Anthony_org]

MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Your Honor, The Plaintiff moves for the courts to enjoin Parliament and the Crown from enacting the Criminal Classifications Act 2.0 until the conclusion of this case.

 

[Westray]

After some consideration, the Court has decided dismiss this case before issuing a summons.

While the Plaintiff alleges that the bill known as the "Criminal Classifications Act 2.0" is unconstitutional, and provides arguments for how it may violate constitutional rights beyond reasonable limits, there are two key issues:

1. This bill has not been passed into law. As stated in the complaint, it has simply "been introduced in Parliament and is currently under debate." The Court is not empowered to supervise parliamentary debate, predict future legislative outcomes, or rule on the constitutionality of proposals that may be amended, rejected, or never enacted. In my view, to evaluate the bill at this stage would be a judicial intrusion on the authority of the legislative branch. Judicial review is a safeguard against unconstitutional laws, not a veto over proposed legislation.

2. To establish standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate a concrete and particularized injury. Based on the complaint, the Plaintiff has not alleged that he:

• has been arrested, charged, or punished under the proposed Act;
• is currently subject to any enforcement action; and or
• faces a specific and individualized threat distinct from that faced by the public at large.

The alleged harms arise solely from the potential future enactment and application of the Act. Such generalized concerns about the legality of proposed legislation, however sincerely held, do not confer standing.

While I appreciate the Plaintiff's intention to "to prevent the passage and enforcement of legislation that would violate fundamental constitutional protections and collapse the separation of powers," I believe that ruling on a bill before it has even been voted on would construe a much more immediate threat to the separation of powers.

At this stage, we don't even know if such bill will pass the Parliament, face amendments during the session, or be rescinded altogether. Until the Act is enacted and applied, any ruling by this Court would necessarily rest on assumptions regarding the final text of the legislation and the manner in which it would be implemented. This would be wrong.

Therefore, this matter is hereby dismissed without prejudice. You may re-file it if the bill becomes law and standing is established.

Thank for your time.