Case: Pending robidemon2 v. Ministry of Justice (2025) CV 14

Plaintiff: robidemon2
Defendant: Ministry of Justice

The Defendant is required to appear before the District Court in the case of robidemon2 v. Ministry of Justice. Failure to do so within 48 hours may result in a default judgement. The Court asks both parties to familiarize themselves with the relevant court documents, appropriate formats, and the law, especially as referenced in the complaint. Please ensure all court orders are followed.

If you wish to hold this trial in person at the Azalea Isles Courthouse, indicate so in your response. The Court will work with both parties to try and hold hearings at convenient times.

Signed,
District Court Justice Fauz Wolfe

The Ministry of Justice is present before the court.

Your Honor,
The Plaintiff wishes to request an in-game trial.

The Defense does not wish to hold the trial in-game.

The outcome of this trial has the potential to seriously impact the Azalean Isles legal system; a messy, poorly documented in-game trial would make it harder to comprehend the decision of the judge at any given time in the future.
Additionally, we believe that the trial's outcome should be influenced by legal deliigence rather than oral persuasion. In-game trials are also often subject to drama, which we don't want during this serious case.

Since there is a disagreement, and because the Court would also prefer a forums trial due to IRL responsibilities, we will continue here.

Your honor, I'd like to file an Amicus brief on the details of this case.

Your honor, I'd like to rescind my request to file an Amicus Brief. I filed this under the wrong case and meant to request to file under Aero Nox v. Azelea Isles

Your Honour,

the Defense would like to hear the opening statement of the Plaintiff.

Mr. Brehmer, you still need to provide an answer to the case file before the Plaintiff can provide their opening statement.

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.

Your Honour,

The Defense considers this complaint to not be undemined by sufficient legal claims.

The plaintiff claims that there is a lack of a warrant, ignoring that there had been an active warrant to arrest them. This in itself is sufficient to enter the property of the plaintiff for Section 11 (d) of the Criminal Code reads:

"The Ministry of Justice must obtain a warrant before entering or searching private property [...]"

There is no explanation of which warrant is needed. Therefore, any type of warrant is permissible for the purpose of entering the property for carrying out the the arrest.

The Plaintiff also claims that a lack of mutual consent also constitutes a legal breach, which is untrue. Mutual consent by the property owner is only needed when there is no warrant. The presence of such warrant nullifies this claim.


Motion to Dismiss

The Defendant files for the dismissal of the case due to the legal inconsistencies within the plaintiff's case file; Robideman2 claims, that they were arrested without due process.
The plantiff has failed to explain why this is true under their filing. The arrest was in accordance with the applicable law layed out in the previous explanations.

Your Honor,
Defense council seems to not be contending that there was an entry into private property under the premise of an arrest warrant, I think that's important for the rest of the case.
While the act does say that "The Ministry of Justice must obtain a warrant before entering or searching private property" I think its important to analyze what the intent of the language is. A warrant is the quintessential protection the individual has to overzealous government officials, and when reading this criminal code the language seems to me to be trying to achieve just that. The word that points at this the most is "searching", when looking at the constitution we see that one of the many rights given to the citizens of Azalea is the right against "unreasonable search and seizure". A warrant exists to protect said right this warrant is called a search warrant where once again we see that key word feature, "A court order authorizing law enforcement to search a specific location...". An arrest warrant would never be able to protect the citizen's constitutional right thus the existence of the search warrant, one which I think the criminal code act expressly references by its use of the word search in Section 11(d). Even looking at the caveats attached we see this theory be reinforced:

When consent has been given by the property owner or occupant.

In cases of emergency, where there is an immediate threat to life, safety, or property.

When the property is in plain view, and the search or seizure is related to a crime being committed in the presence of law enforcement.

When pursuing a suspect who has fled into the property.

When authorized by a valid court order for a specific investigation or operation.


It is abundantly clear that every single one of the conditionals are there to point at cases where a search is no longer "unreasonable", words like "pursue", "emergency", and consent all point to this fact. If the conditionals try to address this constitutional protection would it be too much to assume that the warrant in question is the one that aims to do the exact same thing?

Law enforcement has wrongly interpreted the criminal code act and has violated the rights afforded to Plaintiff by the constitution.

Motion to summary judgement
As Defense council is not contending the events rather the interpretation of the criminal code act, I think a summary judgement is due.

Thank you,
Your Honor

Mr. Robi, please save the arguments for your opening statement. A judgement of sorts will be granted if the Defendant does not provide an answer to the case file per the case structure.

Answer to Civil Complaint:


Parties:

1. Plaintiff: Robideman2
2. Defendant: RealHanuta, MoJ


Factual Defenses or Challenges:

1. The plaintiff Robideman2 was pursued by EmeraldMXR, a police officer, onto a property due to an active arrest warrant.
2. The plot f011 was neither owned nor rented by the plaintiff (Exhibit A and B).
3. The plot, which is label as a farm plot, was an open field with no walls surrounding it


Legal Defenses or Challenges:

1. Section 11(d) of the Criminal Code explains, that a warrant is needed to enter a private property

2. The Criminal Code does not care to explain which kind of warrant is needed to enter private property. The conclusion, that an arrest warrant is sufficient, therefore is valid and correct in the Defendant's opinion

3. In addition to that, the CC does not explain what is or is not private property. The meaning of 'private' in a linguistic sence can differ throughout dictionaries, but in this context, the defense sees it as something that is accessible and only for the use of one person or group, like a home.
An open field which is used commercially as a mean of production does not fit this meaning.

4. The fact that the plaintiff did not own the property himself also imposes the question whether or not the property can be asserted as private property of the plaintiff. An entering of neutral property by the police is not a crime mentioned by the Criminal Code.

5. To add to the previous point, one of the exceptions reads: 'When the property is in plain view, and the search or seizure is related to a crime being committed in the presence of law enforcement.'.
Even if there were a lack of a warrant, all the requirements of this exception are fulfilled - the property was an open field, the entering was related to the persuing of a crime comitted by the plaintiff - so that the entering was legally permitted

6. Another exception reads: "When pursuing a suspect who has fled into the property." Again if there is a lack of a search warrant, suspects pursued by the Police cannot merely hide on property; the police is then allowed to enter the property to fulfill their duty of arresting the individual. Since a valid arrest warrant was present, the police had the authority to pursue the plaintiff onto any property.

Evidence

Exhibit A (made on the 18.11.2025)



Exhibit B shows that Robideman did not own the plot in question (using /realty Robideman2, made on the 15.11.2025)

Verification:

I, Hanuata Brehmer, 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 Strike
Your Honor,
I motion to strike legal defense number 4, a property can be either private or public if Plaintiff was in said property because of some agreement with the individual renting it, the fact that it is private wouldn't change thus no thing such as "neutral property" exists.

I also motion to strike legal defense number 6, the word pursue means "follow (someone or something) in order to catch or attack them", Plaintiff was not in pursuit when they were arrested this can be seen in the initial filing where at no point did the MOJ attempt to justify their entry under this premise neither Emerald or Officer Karaca ever state I was in active pursuit. Defense council has just committed perjury.

Your Honour,

I request that the Motions be denied. The Case structure provides that the plaintiff must give a proper response to the complaint's answer in form of an opening statement.

In the case that my previous formal request be denied, I would like to provide a content-related answer to the Motions.

Motion for Sanctions

Your Honour,

regarding my previous remarks, the defense respectfully asks that there be proper sanctions imposed on the plaintiff for disregarding court proceedures.

RealHanuta said:

Motion for Sanctions

Your Honour,

regarding my previous remarks, the defense respectfully asks that there be proper sanctions imposed on the plaintiff for disregarding court proceedures.

Click to expand...

Your Honor,
I was going to ignore this accusation but now im forced to respond, I kindly remind defense council that the case structure rules state "The presiding justice will then call on the plaintiff to provide opening arguments explaining their side of the case and why they should prevail."

The motion to strike is denied, only because I would rather the Plaintiff is able to dissect these counterarguments as a part of their case rather than just removing them completely from the record. As for the perjurious allegations, that will be something to litigate in a separate case.

I have not indicated for the Plaintiff to present an opening argument yet, nor was there a deadline Mr. Robi was constrained by. Both parties anre able to motion for or against any point or action. That being said though, I am not indicating that the Plaintiff has 48 hours from this point to present an opening statement.

Motion for sanctions made by the Defendant is denied, as I didn’t get a chance to indicate previously to present an opening statement, assuming that is what you’re requesting sanctions for.